On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 6:30 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 3/5/24 22:36, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:55 PM David Wei <dw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2024-03-04 18:01, Mina Almasry wrote:
> >>> +struct memory_provider_ops {
> >>> + int (*init)(struct page_pool *pool);
> >>> + void (*destroy)(struct page_pool *pool);
> >>> + struct page *(*alloc_pages)(struct page_pool *pool, gfp_t gfp);
> >>> + bool (*release_page)(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page);
> >>
> >> For ZC Rx we added a scrub() function to memory_provider_ops that is
> >> called from page_pool_scrub(). Does TCP devmem not custom behaviour
> >> waiting for all netmem_refs to return before destroying the page pool?
> >> What happens if e.g. application crashes?
> >
> > (sorry for the long reply, but he refcounting is pretty complicated to
> > explain and I feel like we need to agree on how things currently work)
> >
> > Yeah, the addition of the page_pool_scrub() function is a bit of a
> > head scratcher for me. Here is how the (complicated) refcounting works
> > for devmem TCP (assuming the driver is not doing its own recycling
> > logic which complicates things further):
> >
> > 1. When a netmem_ref is allocated by the page_pool (from dmabuf or
> > page), the netmem_get_pp_ref_count_ref()==1 and belongs to the page
> > pool as long as the netmem is waiting in the pool for driver
> > allocation.
> >
> > 2. When a netmem is allocated by the driver, no refcounting is
> > changed, but the ownership of the netmem_get_pp_ref_count_ref() is
> > implicitly transferred from the page pool to the driver. i.e. the ref
> > now belongs to the driver until an skb is formed.
> >
> > 3. When the driver forms an skb using skb_rx_add_frag_netmem(), no
> > refcounting is changed, but the ownership of the
> > netmem_get_pp_ref_count_ref() is transferred from the driver to the
> > TCP stack.
> >
> > 4. When the TCP stack hands the skb to the application, the TCP stack
> > obtains an additional refcount, so netmem_get_pp_ref_count_ref()==2,
> > and frees the skb using skb_frag_unref(), which drops the
> > netmem_get_pp_ref_count_ref()==1.
> >
> > 5. When the user is done with the skb, the user calls the
> > DEVMEM_DONTNEED setsockopt which calls napi_pp_put_netmem() which
> > recycles the netmem back to the page pool. This doesn't modify any
> > refcounting, but the refcount ownership transfers from the userspace
> > back to the page pool, and we're back at step 1.
> >
> > So all in all netmem can belong either to (a) the page pool, or (b)
> > the driver, or (c) the TCP stack, or (d) the application depending on
> > where exactly it is in the RX path.
> >
> > When an application running devmem TCP crashes, the netmem that belong
> > to the page pool or driver are not touched, because the page pool is
> > not tied to the application in our case really. However, the TCP stack
> > notices the devmem socket of the application close, and when it does,
> > the TCP stack will:
> >
> > 1. Free all the skbs in the sockets receive queue. This is not custom
> > behavior for devmem TCP, it's just standard for TCP to free all skbs
> > waiting to be received by the application.
> > 2. The TCP stack will free references that belong to the application.
> > Since the application crashed, it will not call the DEVMEM_DONTNEED
> > setsockopt, so we need to free those on behalf of the application.
> > This is done in this diff:
> >
> > @@ -2498,6 +2498,15 @@ static void tcp_md5sig_info_free_rcu(struct
> > rcu_head *head)
> > void tcp_v4_destroy_sock(struct sock *sk)
> > {
> > struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
> > + __maybe_unused unsigned long index;
> > + __maybe_unused void *netmem;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_POOL
> > + xa_for_each(&sk->sk_user_frags, index, netmem)
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!napi_pp_put_page((__force netmem_ref)netmem, false));
> > +#endif
> > +
> > + xa_destroy(&sk->sk_user_frags);
> >
> > trace_tcp_destroy_sock(sk);
> >
> > To be honest, I think it makes sense for the TCP stack to be
> > responsible for putting the references that belong to it and the
> > application. To me, it does not make much sense for the page pool to
> > be responsible for putting the reference that belongs to the TCP stack
> > or driver via a page_pool_scrub() function, as those references do not
> > belong to the page pool really. I'm not sure why there is a diff
> > between our use cases here because I'm not an io_uring expert. Why do
> > you need to scrub all the references on page pool destruction? Don't
> > these belong to non-page pool components like io_uring stack or TCP
> > stack ol otherwise?
>
> That one is about cleaning buffers that are in b/w 4 and 5, i.e.
> owned by the user, which devmem does at sock destruction. io_uring
> could get by without scrub, dropping user refs while unregistering
> ifq, but then it'd need to wait for all requests to finish so there
> is no step 4 in the meantime. Might change, can be useful, but it
> was much easier to hook into the pp release loop.
>
> Another concern is who and when can reset ifq / kill pp outside
> of io_uring/devmem. I assume it can happen on a whim, which is
> hard to handle gracefully.
>
If this is about dropping application refs in step 4 & step 5, then
from devmem TCP perspective it must be done on socket close & skb
freeing AFAIU, and not delayed until page_pool destruction. Think
about a stupid or malicious user that does something like:
1. Set up dmabuf binding using netlink api.
2. While (100000):
3. create devmem TCP socket.
4. receive some devmem data on TCP socket.
5. close TCP socket without calling DEVMEM_DONTNEED.
6. clean up dmabuf binding using netlink api.
In this case, we need to drop the references in step 5 when the socket
is destroyed, so the memory is freed to the page pool and available
for the next socket in step 3. We cannot delay the freeing until step
6 when the rx queue is recreated and the page pool is destroyed,
otherwise the net_iovs would leak in the loop and eventually the NIC
would fail to find available memory. The same bug would be
reproducible with io_uring unless you're creating a new page pool for
each new io_uring socket equivalent.
But even outside of this, I think it's a bit semantically off to ask
the page_pool to drop references that belong to the application IMO,
because those references are not the page_pool's.
> --
> Pavel Begunkov
--
Thanks,
Mina
