On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 08:12:27PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 02:27:19PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> >> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 11:22:52AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >> >> > On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 17:39:13 -0700
> >> >> > Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:29:40PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> >> >> > > > Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > > On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 10:35:51 -0700
> >> >> > > > > Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:22:19AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> >> >> > > > >> > Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:17:11PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > static void bq_xmit_all(struct xdp_dev_bulk_queue *bq, u32 flags)
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > {
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > struct net_device *dev = bq->dev;
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > - int sent = 0, err = 0;
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + int sent = 0, drops = 0, err = 0;
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + unsigned int cnt = bq->count;
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + int to_send = cnt;
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > int i;
> >> >> > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > - if (unlikely(!bq->count))
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + if (unlikely(!cnt))
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > return;
> >> >> > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > - for (i = 0; i < bq->count; i++) {
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > struct xdp_frame *xdpf = bq->q[i];
> >> >> > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > prefetch(xdpf);
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > }
> >> >> > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > - sent = dev->netdev_ops->ndo_xdp_xmit(dev, bq->count, bq->q, flags);
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + if (bq->xdp_prog) {
> >> >> > > > >> > >> bq->xdp_prog is used here
> >> >> > > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + to_send = dev_map_bpf_prog_run(bq->xdp_prog, bq->q, cnt, dev);
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + if (!to_send)
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + goto out;
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > +
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + drops = cnt - to_send;
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + }
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > +
> >> >> > > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > > >> > >> [ ... ]
> >> >> > > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > static void bq_enqueue(struct net_device *dev, struct xdp_frame *xdpf,
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > - struct net_device *dev_rx)
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + struct net_device *dev_rx, struct bpf_prog *xdp_prog)
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > {
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > struct list_head *flush_list = this_cpu_ptr(&dev_flush_list);
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > struct xdp_dev_bulk_queue *bq = this_cpu_ptr(dev->xdp_bulkq);
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > @@ -412,18 +466,22 @@ static void bq_enqueue(struct net_device *dev, struct xdp_frame *xdpf,
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > /* Ingress dev_rx will be the same for all xdp_frame's in
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > * bulk_queue, because bq stored per-CPU and must be flushed
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > * from net_device drivers NAPI func end.
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + *
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + * Do the same with xdp_prog and flush_list since these fields
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + * are only ever modified together.
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > */
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > - if (!bq->dev_rx)
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + if (!bq->dev_rx) {
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > bq->dev_rx = dev_rx;
> >> >> > > > >> > >> > + bq->xdp_prog = xdp_prog;
> >> >> > > > >> > >> bp->xdp_prog is assigned here and could be used later in bq_xmit_all().
> >> >> > > > >> > >> How is bq->xdp_prog protected? Are they all under one rcu_read_lock()?
> >> >> > > > >> > >> It is not very obvious after taking a quick look at xdp_do_flush[_map].
> >> >> > > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > > >> > >> e.g. what if the devmap elem gets deleted.
> >> >> > > > >> > >
> >> >> > > > >> > > Jesper knows better than me. From my veiw, based on the description of
> >> >> > > > >> > > __dev_flush():
> >> >> > > > >> > >
> >> >> > > > >> > > On devmap tear down we ensure the flush list is empty before completing to
> >> >> > > > >> > > ensure all flush operations have completed. When drivers update the bpf
> >> >> > > > >> > > program they may need to ensure any flush ops are also complete.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> AFAICT, the bq->xdp_prog is not from the dev. It is from a devmap's elem.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The bq->xdp_prog comes form the devmap "dev" element, and it is stored
> >> >> > in temporarily in the "bq" structure that is only valid for this
> >> >> > softirq NAPI-cycle. I'm slightly worried that we copied this pointer
> >> >> > the the xdp_prog here, more below (and Q for Paul).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> > Yeah, drivers call xdp_do_flush() before exiting their NAPI poll loop,
> >> >> > > > >> > which also runs under one big rcu_read_lock(). So the storage in the
> >> >> > > > >> > bulk queue is quite temporary, it's just used for bulking to increase
> >> >> > > > >> > performance :)
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> I am missing the one big rcu_read_lock() part. For example, in i40e_txrx.c,
> >> >> > > > >> i40e_run_xdp() has its own rcu_read_lock/unlock(). dst->xdp_prog used to run
> >> >> > > > >> in i40e_run_xdp() and it is fine.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> In this patch, dst->xdp_prog is run outside of i40e_run_xdp() where the
> >> >> > > > >> rcu_read_unlock() has already done. It is now run in xdp_do_flush_map().
> >> >> > > > >> or I missed the big rcu_read_lock() in i40e_napi_poll()?
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> I do see the big rcu_read_lock() in mlx5e_napi_poll().
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > I believed/assumed xdp_do_flush_map() was already protected under an
> >> >> > > > > rcu_read_lock. As the devmap and cpumap, which get called via
> >> >> > > > > __dev_flush() and __cpu_map_flush(), have multiple RCU objects that we
> >> >> > > > > are operating on.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > What other rcu objects it is using during flush?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Look at code:
> >> >> > kernel/bpf/cpumap.c
> >> >> > kernel/bpf/devmap.c
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The devmap is filled with RCU code and complicated take-down steps.
> >> >> > The devmap's elements are also RCU objects and the BPF xdp_prog is
> >> >> > embedded in this object (struct bpf_dtab_netdev). The call_rcu
> >> >> > function is __dev_map_entry_free().
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > Perhaps it is a bug in i40e?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > A quick look into ixgbe falls into the same bucket.
> >> >> > > didn't look at other drivers though.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Intel driver are very much in copy-paste mode.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > We are running in softirq in NAPI context, when xdp_do_flush_map() is
> >> >> > > > > call, which I think means that this CPU will not go-through a RCU grace
> >> >> > > > > period before we exit softirq, so in-practice it should be safe.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Yup, this seems to be correct: rcu_softirq_qs() is only called between
> >> >> > > > full invocations of the softirq handler, which for networking is
> >> >> > > > net_rx_action(), and so translates into full NAPI poll cycles.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I don't know enough to comment on the rcu/softirq part, may be someone
> >> >> > > can chime in. There is also a recent napi_threaded_poll().
> >> >> >
> >> >> > CC added Paul. (link to patch[1][2] for context)
> >> >> Updated Paul's email address.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > If it is the case, then some of the existing rcu_read_lock() is unnecessary?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, in many cases, especially depending on how kernel is compiled,
> >> >> > that is true. But we want to keep these, as they also document the
> >> >> > intend of the programmer. And allow us to make the kernel even more
> >> >> > preempt-able in the future.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > At least, it sounds incorrect to only make an exception here while keeping
> >> >> > > other rcu_read_lock() as-is.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Let me be clear: I think you have spotted a problem, and we need to
> >> >> > add rcu_read_lock() at least around the invocation of
> >> >> > bpf_prog_run_xdp() or before around if-statement that call
> >> >> > dev_map_bpf_prog_run(). (Hangbin please do this in V8).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thank you Martin for reviewing the code carefully enough to find this
> >> >> > issue, that some drivers don't have a RCU-section around the full XDP
> >> >> > code path in their NAPI-loop.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Question to Paul. (I will attempt to describe in generic terms what
> >> >> > happens, but ref real-function names).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We are running in softirq/NAPI context, the driver will call a
> >> >> > bq_enqueue() function for every packet (if calling xdp_do_redirect) ,
> >> >> > some driver wrap this with a rcu_read_lock/unlock() section (other have
> >> >> > a large RCU-read section, that include the flush operation).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In the bq_enqueue() function we have a per_cpu_ptr (that store the
> >> >> > xdp_frame packets) that will get flushed/send in the call
> >> >> > xdp_do_flush() (that end-up calling bq_xmit_all()). This flush will
> >> >> > happen before we end our softirq/NAPI context.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The extension is that the per_cpu_ptr data structure (after this patch)
> >> >> > store a pointer to an xdp_prog (which is a RCU object). In the flush
> >> >> > operation (which we will wrap with RCU-read section), we will use this
> >> >> > xdp_prog pointer. I can see that it is in-principle wrong to pass
> >> >> > this-pointer between RCU-read sections, but I consider this safe as we
> >> >> > are running under softirq/NAPI and the per_cpu_ptr is only valid in
> >> >> > this short interval.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I claim a grace/quiescent RCU cannot happen between these two RCU-read
> >> >> > sections, but I might be wrong? (especially in the future or for RT).
> >> >
> >> > If I am reading this correctly (ha!), a very high-level summary of the
> >> > code in question is something like this:
> >> >
> >> > void foo(void)
> >> > {
> >> > local_bh_disable();
> >> >
> >> > rcu_read_lock();
> >> > p = rcu_dereference(gp);
> >> > do_something_with(p);
> >> > rcu_read_unlock();
> >> >
> >> > do_something_else();
> >> >
> >> > rcu_read_lock();
> >> > do_some_other_thing(p);
> >> > rcu_read_unlock();
> >> >
> >> > local_bh_enable();
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > void bar(struct blat *new_gp)
> >> > {
> >> > struct blat *old_gp;
> >> >
> >> > spin_lock(my_lock);
> >> > old_gp = rcu_dereference_protected(gp, lock_held(my_lock));
> >> > rcu_assign_pointer(gp, new_gp);
> >> > spin_unlock(my_lock);
> >> > synchronize_rcu();
> >> > kfree(old_gp);
> >> > }
> >>
> >> Yeah, something like that (the object is freed using call_rcu() - but I
> >> think that's equivalent, right?). And the question is whether we need to
> >> extend foo() so that is has one big rcu_read_lock() that covers the
> >> whole lifetime of p.
> >
> > Yes, use of call_rcu() is an asynchronous version of synchronize_rcu().
> > In fact, synchronize_rcu() is implemented in terms of call_rcu(). ;-)
>
> Right, gotcha!
>
> >> > I need to check up on -rt.
> >> >
> >> > But first... In recent mainline kernels, the local_bh_disable() region
> >> > will look like one big RCU read-side critical section. But don't try
> >> > this prior to v4.20!!! In v4.19 and earlier, you would need to use
> >> > both synchronize_rcu() and synchronize_rcu_bh() to make this work, or,
> >> > for less latency, synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu, call_rcu_bh).
> >>
> >> OK. Variants of this code has been around since before then, but I
> >> honestly have no idea what it looked like back then exactly...
> >
> > I know that feeling...
> >
> >> > Except that in that case, why not just drop the inner rcu_read_unlock()
> >> > and rcu_read_lock() pair? Awkward function boundaries or some such?
> >>
> >> Well if we can just treat such a local_bh_disable()/enable() pair as the
> >> equivalent of rcu_read_lock()/unlock() then I suppose we could just get
> >> rid of the inner ones. What about tools like lockdep; do they understand
> >> this, or are we likely to get complaints if we remove it?
> >
> > If you just got rid of the first rcu_read_unlock() and the second
> > rcu_read_lock() in the code above, lockdep will understand.
>
> Right, but doing so entails going through all the drivers, which is what
> we're trying to avoid :)
I was afraid of that... ;-)
> > However, if you instead get rid of -all- of the rcu_read_lock() and
> > rcu_read_unlock() invocations in the code above, you would need to let
> > lockdep know by adding rcu_read_lock_bh_held(). So instead of this:
> >
> > p = rcu_dereference(gp);
> >
> > You would do this:
> >
> > p = rcu_dereference_check(gp, rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
> >
> > This would be needed for mainline, regardless of -rt.
>
> OK. And as far as I can tell this is harmless for code paths that call
> the same function but from a regular rcu_read_lock()-protected section
> instead from a bh-disabled section, right?
That is correct. That rcu_dereference_check() invocation will make
lockdep be OK with rcu_read_lock() or with softirq being disabled.
Or both, for that matter.
> What happens, BTW, if we *don't* get rid of all the existing
> rcu_read_lock() sections? Going back to your foo() example above, what
> we're discussing is whether to add that second rcu_read_lock() around
> do_some_other_thing(p). I.e., the first one around the rcu_dereference()
> is already there (in the particular driver we're discussing), and the
> local_bh_disable/enable() pair is already there. AFAICT from our
> discussion, there really is not much point in adding that second
> rcu_read_lock/unlock(), is there?
>From an algorithmic point of view, the second rcu_read_lock()
and rcu_read_unlock() are redundant. Of course, there are also
software-engineering considerations, including copy-pasta issues.
> And because that first rcu_read_lock() around the rcu_dereference() is
> already there, lockdep is not likely to complain either, so we're
> basically fine? Except that the code is somewhat confusing as-is, of
> course; i.e., we should probably fix it but it's not terribly urgent. Or?
I am concerned about copy-pasta-induced bugs. Someone looks just at
the code, fails to note the fact that softirq is disabled throughout,
and decides that leaking a pointer from one RCU read-side critical
section to a later one is just fine. :-/
> Hmm, looking at it now, it seems not all the lookup code is actually
> doing rcu_dereference() at all, but rather just a plain READ_ONCE() with
> a comment above it saying that RCU ensures objects won't disappear[0];
> so I suppose we're at least safe from lockdep in that sense :P - but we
> should definitely clean this up.
>
> [0] Exhibit A: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/bpf/devmap.c#L391
That use of READ_ONCE() will definitely avoid lockdep complaints,
including those complaints that point out bugs. It also might get you
sparse complaints if the RCU-protected pointer is marked with __rcu.
> >> > Especially given that if this works on -rt, it is probably because
> >> > their variant of do_softirq() holds rcu_read_lock() across each
> >> > softirq handler invocation. They do something similar for rwlocks.
> >>
> >> Right. Guess we'll wait for your confirmation of that, then. Thanks! :)
> >
> > Looking at v5.11.4-rt11...
> >
> > And __local_bh_disable_ip() has added the required rcu_read_lock(),
> > so dropping all the rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() calls would
> > do the right thing in -rt. And lockdep would understand without the
> > rcu_read_lock_bh_held(), but that is still required for mainline.
>
> Great, thanks for checking!
>
> So this brings to mind another question: Are there any performance
> implications to nesting rcu_read_locks() inside each other? One
> thing that would be fairly easy to do (in terms of how much code we have
> to touch) is to just add a top-level rcu_read_lock() around the
> napi_poll() call in the core dev code, thus making -rt and mainline
> equivalent in that respect. Also, this would make it obvious that all
> the RCU usage inside of NAPI is safe, without having to know about
> bh_disable() and all that. But we obviously don't want to do that if it
> is going to slow things down; WDYT?
Both rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() are quite lightweight (zero for
CONFIG_PREEMPT=n and about two nanoseconds per pair for CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
on 2GHz x86) and can be nested quite deeply. So that approach should
be fine from that viewpoint.
However, remaining in a single RCU read-side critical section forever
will eventually OOM the system, so the code should periodically exit
its top-level RCU read-side critical section, say, every few tens of
milliseconds.
Thanx, Paul
