On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 04:31:11PM +0200, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 at 00:30, Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Right. We cannot fail in unit_free().
> > With per-cpu counter both unit_alloc() and free_bulk_nmi() would
> > potentially fail in such unlikely scenario.
> > Not a big deal for free_bulk_nmi(). It would pick the element later.
> > For unit_alloc() return NULL is normal.
> > Especially since it's so unlikely for nmi to hit right in the middle
> > of llist_del_first().
> >
> > Since we'll add this per-cpu counter to solve interrupted llist_del_first()
> > it feels that the same counter can be used to protect unit_alloc/free/irq_work.
> > Then we don't need free_llist_nmi. Single free_llist would be fine,
> > but unit_free() should not fail. If free_list cannot be accessed
> > due to per-cpu counter being busy we have to push somewhere.
> > So it seems two lists are necessary. Maybe it's still better ?
> > Roughly I'm thinking of the following:
> > unit_alloc()
> > {
> > llnode = NULL;
> > local_irq_save();
> > if (__this_cpu_inc_return(c->alloc_active) != 1))
> > goto out;
> > llnode = __llist_del_first(&c->free_llist);
> > if (llnode)
> > cnt = --c->free_cnt;
> > out:
> > __this_cpu_dec(c->alloc_active);
> > local_irq_restore();
> > return ret;
> > }
> > unit_free()
> > {
> > local_irq_save();
> > if (__this_cpu_inc_return(c->alloc_active) != 1)) {
> > llist_add(llnode, &c->free_llist_nmi);
> > goto out;
> > }
> > __llist_add(llnode, &c->free_llist);
> > cnt = ++c->free_cnt;
> > out:
> > __this_cpu_dec(c->alloc_active);
> > local_irq_restore();
> > return ret;
> > }
> > alloc_bulk, free_bulk would be protected by alloc_active as well.
> > alloc_bulk_nmi is gone.
> > free_bulk_nmi is still there to drain unlucky unit_free,
> > but it's now alone to do llist_del_first() and it just frees anything
> > that is in the free_llist_nmi.
> > The main advantage is that free_llist_nmi doesn't need to prefilled.
> > It will be empty most of the time.
> > wdyt?
>
> Looks great! The other option would be to not have the overflow
> free_llist_nmi list and just allowing llist_add to free_llist from the
> NMI case even if we interrupt llist_del_first, but then the non-NMI
> user needs to use the atomic llist_add version as well (since we may
> interrupt it),
not only llist_add, but unit_alloc would have to use atomic llist_del_first too.
So any operation on the list would have to be with cmpxchg.
> which won't be great for performance.
exactly.
> So having the
> extra list is much better.
yep. same thinking.
I'll refactor the patches and send v3 with this approach.
