Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 01:01 PM -07, John Fastabend wrote:
> > Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 12:16 PM -07, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 03:33:13PM +0200, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:13 AM -07, sdf@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> >> > On 10/17, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> >> >> From: Cong Wang <cong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Technically we don't need lock the sock in the psock work, but we
> >> >> >> need to prevent this work running in parallel with sock_map_close().
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> With this, we no longer need to wait for the psock->work synchronously,
> >> >> >> because when we reach here, either this work is still pending, or
> >> >> >> blocking on the lock_sock(), or it is completed. We only need to cancel
> >> >> >> the first case asynchronously, and we need to bail out the second case
> >> >> >> quickly by checking SK_PSOCK_TX_ENABLED bit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Fixes: 799aa7f98d53 ("skmsg: Avoid lock_sock() in sk_psock_backlog()")
> >> >> >> Reported-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> Cc: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <cong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This seems to remove the splat for me:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tested-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The patch looks good, but I'll leave the review to Jakub/John.
> >> >>
> >> >> I can't poke any holes in it either.
> >> >>
> >> >> However, it is harder for me to follow than the initial idea [1].
> >> >> So I'm wondering if there was anything wrong with it?
> >> >
> >> > It caused a warning in sk_stream_kill_queues() when I actually tested
> >> > it (after posting).
> >>
> >> We must have seen the same warnings. They seemed unrelated so I went
> >> digging. We have a fix for these [1]. They were present since 5.18-rc1.
> >>
> >> >> This seems like a step back when comes to simplifying locking in
> >> >> sk_psock_backlog() that was done in 799aa7f98d53.
> >> >
> >> > Kinda, but it is still true that this sock lock is not for sk_socket
> >> > (merely for closing this race condition).
> >>
> >> I really think the initial idea [2] is much nicer. I can turn it into a
> >> patch, if you are short on time.
> >>
> >> With [1] and [2] applied, the dead lock and memory accounting warnings
> >> are gone, when running `test_sockmap`.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jakub
> >>
> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/1667000674-13237-1-git-send-email-wangyufen@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Y0xJUc%2FLRu8K%2FAf8@pop-os.localdomain/
> >
> > Cong, what do you think? I tend to agree [2] looks nicer to me.
> >
> > @Jakub,
> >
> > Also I think we could simply drop the proposed cancel_work_sync in
> > sock_map_close()?
> >
> > }
> > @@ -1619,9 +1619,10 @@ void sock_map_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
> > saved_close = psock->saved_close;
> > sock_map_remove_links(sk, psock);
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > - sk_psock_stop(psock, true);
> > - sk_psock_put(sk, psock);
> > + sk_psock_stop(psock);
> > release_sock(sk);
> > + cancel_work_sync(&psock->work);
> > + sk_psock_put(sk, psock);
> > saved_close(sk, timeout);
> > }
> >
> > The sk_psock_put is going to cancel the work before destroying the psock,
> >
> > sk_psock_put()
> > sk_psock_drop()
> > queue_rcu_work(system_wq, psock->rwork)
> >
> > and then in callback we
> >
> > sk_psock_destroy()
> > cancel_work_synbc(psock->work)
> >
> > although it might be nice to have the work cancelled earlier rather than
> > latter maybe.
>
> Good point.
>
> I kinda like the property that once close() returns we know there is no
> deferred work running for the socket.
>
> I find the APIs where a deferred cleanup happens sometimes harder to
> write tests for.
>
> But I don't really have a strong opinion here.
I don't either and Cong left it so I'm good with that.
Reviewing backlog logic though I think there is another bug there, but
I haven't been able to trigger it in any of our tests.
The sk_psock_backlog() logic is,
sk_psock_backlog(struct work_struct *work)
mutex_lock()
while (skb = ...)
...
do {
ret = sk_psock_handle_skb()
if (ret <= 0) {
if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
sk_psock_skb_state()
goto end;
}
...
} while (len);
...
end:
mutex_unlock()
what I'm not seeing is if we get an EAGAIN through sk_psock_handle_skb
how do we schedule the backlog again. For egress we would set the
SOCK_NOSPACE bit and then get a write space available callback which
would do the schedule(). The ingress side could fail with EAGAIN
through the alloc_sk_msg(GFP_ATOMIC) call. This is just a kzalloc,
sk_psock_handle_skb()
sk_psock_skb_ingress()
sk_psock_skb_ingress_self()
msg = alloc_sk_msg()
kzalloc() <- this can return NULL
if (!msg)
return -EAGAIN <- could we stall now
I think we could stall here if there was nothing else to kick it. I
was thinking about this maybe,
diff --git a/net/core/skmsg.c b/net/core/skmsg.c
index 1efdc47a999b..b96e95625027 100644
--- a/net/core/skmsg.c
+++ b/net/core/skmsg.c
@@ -624,13 +624,20 @@ static int sk_psock_handle_skb(struct sk_psock *psock, struct sk_buff *skb,
static void sk_psock_skb_state(struct sk_psock *psock,
struct sk_psock_work_state *state,
struct sk_buff *skb,
- int len, int off)
+ int len, int off, bool ingress)
{
spin_lock_bh(&psock->ingress_lock);
if (sk_psock_test_state(psock, SK_PSOCK_TX_ENABLED)) {
state->skb = skb;
state->len = len;
state->off = off;
+ /* For ingress we may not have a wakeup callback to trigger
+ * the reschedule on so need to reschedule retry. For egress
+ * we will get TCP stack callback when its a good time to
+ * retry.
+ */
+ if (ingress)
+ schedule_work(&psock->work);
} else {
sock_drop(psock->sk, skb);
}
@@ -678,7 +685,7 @@ static void sk_psock_backlog(struct work_struct *work)
if (ret <= 0) {
if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
sk_psock_skb_state(psock, state, skb,
- len, off);
+ len, off, ingress);
goto end;
}
/* Hard errors break pipe and stop xmit. */
Its tempting to try and use the memory pressure callbacks but those are
built for the skb cache so I think overloading them is not so nice. The
drawback to above is its possible no memory is available even when we
get back to the backlog. We could use a delayed reschedule but its not
clear what delay makes sense here. Maybe some backoff...
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
John
