"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:00:24AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:10:38PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 09:59:55PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> >> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 04:24:41PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:16:40AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:21:41PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > 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.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> OK, great, thank you for confirming my understanding!
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. :-/
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Yup, totally agreed that we need to fix this for the sake of the humans
>> >> >> >> >> >> reading the code; just wanted to make sure my understanding was correct
>> >> >> >> >> >> that we don't strictly need to do anything as far as the machines
>> >> >> >> >> >> executing it are concerned :)
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> It's not; it's the netdev_map member of this struct:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> struct bpf_dtab {
>> >> >> >> >> >> struct bpf_map map;
>> >> >> >> >> >> struct bpf_dtab_netdev **netdev_map; /* DEVMAP type only */
>> >> >> >> >> >> struct list_head list;
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> /* these are only used for DEVMAP_HASH type maps */
>> >> >> >> >> >> struct hlist_head *dev_index_head;
>> >> >> >> >> >> spinlock_t index_lock;
>> >> >> >> >> >> unsigned int items;
>> >> >> >> >> >> u32 n_buckets;
>> >> >> >> >> >> };
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Will adding __rcu to such a dynamic array member do the right thing when
>> >> >> >> >> >> paired with rcu_dereference() on array members (i.e., in place of the
>> >> >> >> >> >> READ_ONCE in the code linked above)?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > The only thing __rcu will do is provide information to the sparse static
>> >> >> >> >> > analysis tool. Which will then gripe at you for applying READ_ONCE()
>> >> >> >> >> > to a __rcu pointer. But it is already griping at you for applying
>> >> >> >> >> > rcu_dereference() to something not marked __rcu, so... ;-)
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Right, hence the need for a cleanup ;)
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> My question was more if it understood arrays, though. I.e., that
>> >> >> >> >> 'netdev_map' is an array of RCU pointers, not an RCU pointer to an
>> >> >> >> >> array... Or am I maybe thinking that tool is way smarter than it is, and
>> >> >> >> >> it just complains for any access to that field that doesn't use
>> >> >> >> >> rcu_dereference()?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I believe that sparse will know about the pointers being __rcu, but
>> >> >> >> > not the array. Unless you mark both levels.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Hi Paul
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> One more question, since I started adding the annotations: We are
>> >> >> >> currently swapping out the pointers using xchg():
>> >> >> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/bpf/devmap.c#L555
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> and even cmpxchg():
>> >> >> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/bpf/devmap.c#L831
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Sparse complains about these if I add the __rcu annotation to the
>> >> >> >> definition (which otherwise works just fine with the double-pointer,
>> >> >> >> BTW). Is there a way to fix that? Some kind of rcu_ macro version of the
>> >> >> >> atomic swaps or something? Or do we just keep the regular xchg() and
>> >> >> >> ignore those particular sparse warnings?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Sounds like I need to supply a unrcu_pointer() macro or some such.
>> >> >> > This would operate something like the current open-coded casts
>> >> >> > in __rcu_dereference_protected().
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So with that, I would turn the existing:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> dev = READ_ONCE(dtab->netdev_map[i]);
>> >> >> if (!dev || netdev != dev->dev)
>> >> >> continue;
>> >> >> odev = cmpxchg(&dtab->netdev_map[i], dev, NULL);
>> >> >>
>> >> >> into:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> dev = rcu_dereference(dtab->netdev_map[i]);
>> >> >> if (!dev || netdev != dev->dev)
>> >> >> continue;
>> >> >> odev = cmpxchg(unrcu_pointer(&dtab->netdev_map[i]), dev, NULL);
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> and with a _check version:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> old_dev = xchg(unrcu_pointer_check(&dtab->netdev_map[k], rcu_read_lock_bh_held()), NULL);
>> >> >>
>> >> >> right?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Or would it be:
>> >> >> odev = cmpxchg(&unrcu_pointer(dtab->netdev_map[i]), dev, NULL);
>> >> >> ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Would something like that work for you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, I believe it would :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Except that I was forgetting that the __rcu decorates the pointed-to
>> >> > data rather than the pointer itself. :-/
>> >> >
>> >> > But that is actually easier, as you can follow the example of
>> >> > rcu_assign_pointer(), namely using RCU_INITIALIZER().
>> >> >
>> >> > So like this:
>> >> >
>> >> > odev = cmpxchg(&dtab->netdev_map[i], RCU_INITIALIZER(dev), NULL);
>> >> >
>> >> > I -think- that the NULL doesn't need an RCU_INITIALIZER(), but it is
>> >> > of course sparse's opinion that matters.
>> >> >
>> >> > And of course like this:
>> >> >
>> >> > old_dev = xchg(&dtab->netdev_map[k], RCU_INITIALIZER(newmap));
>> >> >
>> >> > Does that work, or am I still confused?
>> >>
>> >> That gets rid of one warning, but not the other. Before (plain xchg):
>> >>
>> >> kernel/bpf/devmap.c:657:19: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different address spaces)
>> >> kernel/bpf/devmap.c:657:19: expected struct bpf_dtab_netdev [noderef] __rcu *__ret
>> >> kernel/bpf/devmap.c:657:19: got struct bpf_dtab_netdev *[assigned] dev
>> >> kernel/bpf/devmap.c:657:17: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces)
>> >> kernel/bpf/devmap.c:657:17: expected struct bpf_dtab_netdev *old_dev
>> >> kernel/bpf/devmap.c:657:17: got struct bpf_dtab_netdev [noderef] __rcu *[assigned] __ret
>> >>
>> >> after (RCU_INITIALIZER() on the second argument to xchg):
>> >>
>> >> kernel/bpf/devmap.c:657:17: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces)
>> >> kernel/bpf/devmap.c:657:17: expected struct bpf_dtab_netdev *old_dev
>> >> kernel/bpf/devmap.c:657:17: got struct bpf_dtab_netdev [noderef] __rcu *[assigned] __ret
>> >>
>> >> I can get rid of that second one by marking old_dev as __rcu, but then I
>> >> get a new warning when dereferencing that in the subsequent
>> >> call_rcu()...
>> >>
>> >> So I guess we still need that unrcu_pointer(), to wrap the xchg() in?
>> >
>> > Well, at least this use case permits an lvalue. ;-)
>> >
>> > Please see below for an untested patch intended to permit the following:
>> >
>> > old_dev = unrcu_pointer(xchg(&dtab->netdev_map[k], RCU_INITIALIZER(newmap)));
>> >
>> > Does that do the trick?
>>
>> Yes, it does! With that I can mark the pointer as __rcu and get all uses
>> of it through sparse without complaints - awesome!
>>
>> How do RCU patches usually make it into the kernel? Can you provide me
>> with a proper patch I can just include along with my cleanup patches
>> (taking it through the bpf tree)? Or do we need to go through some other
>> tree and wait for a merge?
>
> Normally through the -rcu tree, but please feel free to pull this one
> (shown formally below) along with your changes. I have queued it in
> the -rcu tree as well, but my normal process would submit it during the
> v5.14 merge window, that is, not the upcoming one but the one after that.
>
> So for example if your work makes it into the upcoming merge window,
> I will drop my copy of my patch when I rebase onto v5.13-rc1.
Sounds good; not sure if I'll manage to get something in before this
merge window (which seems to be fast approaching); we'll see. Thanks! :)
-Toke
