On 2020-05-11 2:59 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:32:36AM +0300, Paul Blakey wrote:
>> On 5/11/2020 1:14 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> [...]
>>>> @@ -831,9 +832,14 @@ static void flow_offload_queue_work(struct
>>>> flow_offload_work *offload)
>>>> {
>>>> struct flow_offload_work *offload;
>>>>
>>>> + if (test_and_set_bit(NF_FLOW_HW_PENDING, &flow->flags))
>>>> + return NULL;
>>> In case of stats, it's fine to lose work.
>>>
>>> But how does this work for the deletion case? Does this falls back to
>>> the timeout deletion?
>>
>> We get to nf_flow_table_offload_del (delete) in these cases:
>>
>>> -------if (nf_flow_has_expired(flow) || nf_ct_is_dying(flow->ct) ||
>>> ------- test_bit(NF_FLOW_TEARDOWN, &flow->flags) {
>>> ------->------- ....
>>> ------->------- nf_flow_offload_del(flow_table, flow);
>>
>> Which are all persistent once set but the nf_flow_has_expired(flow). So we
>> will
>> try the delete
>> again and again till pending flag is unset or the flow is 'saved' by the
>> already
>> queued stats updating the timeout.
>> A pending stats update can't save the flow once it's marked for teardown or
>> (flow->ct is dying), only delay it.
>
> Thanks for explaining.
>
>> We didn't mention flush, like in table free. I guess we need to flush the
>> hardware workqueue
>> of any pending stats work, then queue the deletion, and flush again:
>> Adding nf_flow_table_offload_flush(flow_table), after
>> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&flow_table->gc_work);
>
> The "flush" makes sure that stats work runs before the deletion, to
> ensure no races happen for in-transit work objects, right?
>
> We might use alloc_ordered_workqueue() and let the workqueue handle
> this problem?
>
ordered workqueue executed one work at a time.
