Jesper Dangaard Brouer <bro...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 10:35:51 -0700
> Martin KaFai Lau <ka...@fb.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:22:19AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> > Hangbin Liu <liuhang...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:17:11PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>> > >> > static void bq_xmit_all(struct xdp_dev_bulk_queue *bq, u32 flags)
>> > >> > {
>> > >> > struct net_device *dev = bq->dev;
>> > >> > - int sent = 0, err = 0;
>> > >> > + int sent = 0, drops = 0, err = 0;
>> > >> > + unsigned int cnt = bq->count;
>> > >> > + int to_send = cnt;
>> > >> > int i;
>> > >> >
>> > >> > - if (unlikely(!bq->count))
>> > >> > + if (unlikely(!cnt))
>> > >> > return;
>> > >> >
>> > >> > - for (i = 0; i < bq->count; i++) {
>> > >> > + for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
>> > >> > struct xdp_frame *xdpf = bq->q[i];
>> > >> >
>> > >> > prefetch(xdpf);
>> > >> > }
>> > >> >
>> > >> > - sent = dev->netdev_ops->ndo_xdp_xmit(dev, bq->count, bq->q,
>> > >> > flags);
>> > >> > + if (bq->xdp_prog) {
>> > >> bq->xdp_prog is used here
>> > >>
>> > >> > + to_send = dev_map_bpf_prog_run(bq->xdp_prog, bq->q,
>> > >> > cnt, dev);
>> > >> > + if (!to_send)
>> > >> > + goto out;
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > + drops = cnt - to_send;
>> > >> > + }
>> > >> > +
>> > >>
>> > >> [ ... ]
>> > >>
>> > >> > static void bq_enqueue(struct net_device *dev, struct xdp_frame
>> > >> > *xdpf,
>> > >> > - struct net_device *dev_rx)
>> > >> > + struct net_device *dev_rx, struct bpf_prog
>> > >> > *xdp_prog)
>> > >> > {
>> > >> > struct list_head *flush_list = this_cpu_ptr(&dev_flush_list);
>> > >> > struct xdp_dev_bulk_queue *bq = this_cpu_ptr(dev->xdp_bulkq);
>> > >> > @@ -412,18 +466,22 @@ static void bq_enqueue(struct net_device *dev,
>> > >> > struct xdp_frame *xdpf,
>> > >> > /* Ingress dev_rx will be the same for all xdp_frame's in
>> > >> > * bulk_queue, because bq stored per-CPU and must be flushed
>> > >> > * from net_device drivers NAPI func end.
>> > >> > + *
>> > >> > + * Do the same with xdp_prog and flush_list since these fields
>> > >> > + * are only ever modified together.
>> > >> > */
>> > >> > - if (!bq->dev_rx)
>> > >> > + if (!bq->dev_rx) {
>> > >> > bq->dev_rx = dev_rx;
>> > >> > + bq->xdp_prog = xdp_prog;
>> > >> bp->xdp_prog is assigned here and could be used later in bq_xmit_all().
>> > >> How is bq->xdp_prog protected? Are they all under one rcu_read_lock()?
>> > >> It is not very obvious after taking a quick look at xdp_do_flush[_map].
>> > >>
>> > >> e.g. what if the devmap elem gets deleted.
>> > >
>> > > Jesper knows better than me. From my veiw, based on the description of
>> > > __dev_flush():
>> > >
>> > > On devmap tear down we ensure the flush list is empty before completing
>> > > to
>> > > ensure all flush operations have completed. When drivers update the bpf
>> > > program they may need to ensure any flush ops are also complete.
>>
>> AFAICT, the bq->xdp_prog is not from the dev. It is from a devmap's elem.
>>
>> >
>> > Yeah, drivers call xdp_do_flush() before exiting their NAPI poll loop,
>> > which also runs under one big rcu_read_lock(). So the storage in the
>> > bulk queue is quite temporary, it's just used for bulking to increase
>> > performance :)
>>
>> I am missing the one big rcu_read_lock() part. For example, in i40e_txrx.c,
>> i40e_run_xdp() has its own rcu_read_lock/unlock(). dst->xdp_prog used to run
>> in i40e_run_xdp() and it is fine.
>>
>> In this patch, dst->xdp_prog is run outside of i40e_run_xdp() where the
>> rcu_read_unlock() has already done. It is now run in xdp_do_flush_map().
>> or I missed the big rcu_read_lock() in i40e_napi_poll()?
>>
>> I do see the big rcu_read_lock() in mlx5e_napi_poll().
>
> I believed/assumed xdp_do_flush_map() was already protected under an
> rcu_read_lock. As the devmap and cpumap, which get called via
> __dev_flush() and __cpu_map_flush(), have multiple RCU objects that we
> are operating on.
>
> Perhaps it is a bug in i40e?
>
> We are running in softirq in NAPI context, when xdp_do_flush_map() is
> call, which I think means that this CPU will not go-through a RCU grace
> period before we exit softirq, so in-practice it should be safe.
Yup, this seems to be correct: rcu_softirq_qs() is only called between
full invocations of the softirq handler, which for networking is
net_rx_action(), and so translates into full NAPI poll cycles.
-Toke
