[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240417062721.45652-3-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:27:20 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com,
davem@...emloft.net,
horms@...nel.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kerneljasonxing@...il.com,
Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: rps: protect filter locklessly
From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
As we can see, rflow->filter can be written/read concurrently, so
lockless access is needed.
Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
---
I'm not very sure if the READ_ONCE in set_rps_cpu() is useful. I
scaned/checked the codes and found no lock can prevent multiple
threads from calling set_rps_cpu() and handling the same flow
simultaneously. The same question still exists in patch [3/3].
---
net/core/dev.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 2003b9a61e40..40a535158e45 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -4524,8 +4524,8 @@ set_rps_cpu(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb,
goto out;
old_rflow = rflow;
rflow = &flow_table->flows[flow_id];
- rflow->filter = rc;
- if (old_rflow->filter == rflow->filter)
+ WRITE_ONCE(rflow->filter, rc);
+ if (old_rflow->filter == READ_ONCE(rflow->filter))
old_rflow->filter = RPS_NO_FILTER;
out:
#endif
@@ -4666,7 +4666,7 @@ bool rps_may_expire_flow(struct net_device *dev, u16 rxq_index,
if (flow_table && flow_id <= flow_table->mask) {
rflow = &flow_table->flows[flow_id];
cpu = READ_ONCE(rflow->cpu);
- if (rflow->filter == filter_id && cpu < nr_cpu_ids &&
+ if (READ_ONCE(rflow->filter) == filter_id && cpu < nr_cpu_ids &&
((int)(READ_ONCE(per_cpu(softnet_data, cpu).input_queue_head) -
READ_ONCE(rflow->last_qtail)) <
(int)(10 * flow_table->mask)))
--
2.37.3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists