[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875xjau5ub.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 16:32:12 +0200
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, tom@...bertland.com, Eric Dumazet
<eric.dumazet@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo
Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, dsahern@...nel.org,
makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp, kernel-team@...udflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 1/2] veth: apply qdisc backpressure on full
ptr_ring to reduce TX drops
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org> writes:
> On 11/04/2025 14.45, Simon Horman wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 05:31:19PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>>> In production, we're seeing TX drops on veth devices when the ptr_ring
>>> fills up. This can occur when NAPI mode is enabled, though it's
>>> relatively rare. However, with threaded NAPI - which we use in
>>> production - the drops become significantly more frequent.
>>>
>>> The underlying issue is that with threaded NAPI, the consumer often runs
>>> on a different CPU than the producer. This increases the likelihood of
>>> the ring filling up before the consumer gets scheduled, especially under
>>> load, leading to drops in veth_xmit() (ndo_start_xmit()).
>>>
>>> This patch introduces backpressure by returning NETDEV_TX_BUSY when the
>>> ring is full, signaling the qdisc layer to requeue the packet. The txq
>>> (netdev queue) is stopped in this condition and restarted once
>>> veth_poll() drains entries from the ring, ensuring coordination between
>>> NAPI and qdisc.
>>>
>>> Backpressure is only enabled when a qdisc is attached. Without a qdisc,
>>> the driver retains its original behavior - dropping packets immediately
>>> when the ring is full. This avoids unexpected behavior changes in setups
>>> without a configured qdisc.
>>>
>>> With a qdisc in place (e.g. fq, sfq) this allows Active Queue Management
>>> (AQM) to fairly schedule packets across flows and reduce collateral
>>> damage from elephant flows.
>>>
>>> A known limitation of this approach is that the full ring sits in front
>>> of the qdisc layer, effectively forming a FIFO buffer that introduces
>>> base latency. While AQM still improves fairness and mitigates flow
>>> dominance, the latency impact is measurable.
>>>
>>> In hardware drivers, this issue is typically addressed using BQL (Byte
>>> Queue Limits), which tracks in-flight bytes needed based on physical link
>>> rate. However, for virtual drivers like veth, there is no fixed bandwidth
>>> constraint - the bottleneck is CPU availability and the scheduler's ability
>>> to run the NAPI thread. It is unclear how effective BQL would be in this
>>> context.
>>>
>>> This patch serves as a first step toward addressing TX drops. Future work
>>> may explore adapting a BQL-like mechanism to better suit virtual devices
>>> like veth.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>
>>
>> Thanks Jesper,
>>
>> It's very nice to see backpressure support being added here.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> @@ -874,9 +909,16 @@ static int veth_xdp_rcv(struct veth_rq *rq, int budget,
>>> struct veth_xdp_tx_bq *bq,
>>> struct veth_stats *stats)
>>> {
>>> + struct veth_priv *priv = netdev_priv(rq->dev);
>>> + int queue_idx = rq->xdp_rxq.queue_index;
>>> + struct netdev_queue *peer_txq;
>>> + struct net_device *peer_dev;
>>> int i, done = 0, n_xdpf = 0;
>>> void *xdpf[VETH_XDP_BATCH];
>>>
>>> + peer_dev = priv->peer;
>>
>> I think you need to take into account RCU here.
>>
>> Sparse says:
>>
>> .../veth.c:919:18: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces)
>> .../veth.c:919:18: expected struct net_device *peer_dev
>> .../veth.c:919:18: got struct net_device [noderef] __rcu *peer
>>
>
> Is it correctly understood that I need an:
>
> peer_dev = rcu_dereference(priv->peer);
>
> And also wrap this in a RCU section (rcu_read_lock()) ?
Just the deref - softirq already counts as an RCU section, so no need
for an additional rcu_read_lock() :)
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists