Sorry, guys, the experiment environment is no longer existing now. We
finally use fq_codel for online product.
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> 于2020年9月18日周五 上午3:52写道：
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 7:10 PM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsh...@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020/9/11 4:19, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 8:21 PM Kehuan Feng <kehuan.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I also tried Cong's patch (shown below on my tree) and it could avoid
> > >> the issue (stressing for 30 minutus for three times and not jitter
> > >> observed).
> > >
> > > Thanks for verifying it!
> > >
> > >>
> > >> --- ./include/net/sch_generic.h.orig 2020-08-21 15:13:51.787952710 +0800
> > >> +++ ./include/net/sch_generic.h 2020-09-03 21:36:11.468383738 +0800
> > >> @@ -127,8 +127,7 @@
> > >> static inline bool qdisc_run_begin(struct Qdisc *qdisc)
> > >> {
> > >> if (qdisc->flags & TCQ_F_NOLOCK) {
> > >> - if (!spin_trylock(&qdisc->seqlock))
> > >> - return false;
> > >> + spin_lock(&qdisc->seqlock);
> > >> } else if (qdisc_is_running(qdisc)) {
> > >> return false;
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> I am not actually know what you are discussing above. It seems to me
> > >> that Cong's patch is similar as disabling lockless feature.
> > >
> > >>From performance's perspective, yeah. Did you see any performance
> > > downgrade with my patch applied? It would be great if you can compare
> > > it with removing NOLOCK. And if the performance is as bad as no
> > > NOLOCK, then we can remove the NOLOCK bit for pfifo_fast, at least
> > > for now.
> >
> > It seems the lockless qdisc may have below concurrent problem:
> > cpu0: cpu1:
> > q->enqueue .
> > qdisc_run_begin(q) .
> > __qdisc_run(q) ->qdisc_restart() -> dequeue_skb() .
> > -> sch_direct_xmit() .
> > .
> > q->enqueue
> >
> > qdisc_run_begin(q)
> > qdisc_run_end(q)
> >
> >
> > cpu1 enqueue a skb without calling __qdisc_run(), and cpu0 did not see the
> > enqueued skb when calling __qdisc_run(q) because cpu1 may enqueue the skb
> > after cpu0 called __qdisc_run(q) and before cpu0 called qdisc_run_end(q).
>
> This is the same problem that my patch fixes, I do not know
> why you are suggesting another patch despite quoting mine.
> Please read the whole thread if you want to participate.
>
> Thanks.
