"Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@kernel.org> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:21:41PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@kernel.org> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 08:12:27PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@kernel.org> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 02:27:19PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> >> "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@kernel.org> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 11:22:52AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 17:39:13 -0700
>> >> >> >> > Martin KaFai Lau <ka...@fb.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:29:40PM +0200, Toke
>> >> >> >> > > Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > 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.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The bq->xdp_prog comes form the devmap "dev" element, and it is
>> >> >> >> > stored
>> >> >> >> > in temporarily in the "bq" structure that is only valid for this
>> >> >> >> > softirq NAPI-cycle. I'm slightly worried that we copied this
>> >> >> >> > pointer
>> >> >> >> > the the xdp_prog here, more below (and Q for Paul).
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > > >> >
>> >> >> >> > > > >> > 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.
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > What other rcu objects it is using during flush?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Look at code:
>> >> >> >> > kernel/bpf/cpumap.c
>> >> >> >> > kernel/bpf/devmap.c
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The devmap is filled with RCU code and complicated take-down
>> >> >> >> > steps.
>> >> >> >> > The devmap's elements are also RCU objects and the BPF xdp_prog is
>> >> >> >> > embedded in this object (struct bpf_dtab_netdev). The call_rcu
>> >> >> >> > function is __dev_map_entry_free().
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > > > Perhaps it is a bug in i40e?
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > A quick look into ixgbe falls into the same bucket.
>> >> >> >> > > didn't look at other drivers though.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Intel driver are very much in copy-paste mode.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > > 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.
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > I don't know enough to comment on the rcu/softirq part, may be
>> >> >> >> > > someone
>> >> >> >> > > can chime in. There is also a recent napi_threaded_poll().
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > CC added Paul. (link to patch[1][2] for context)
>> >> >> >> Updated Paul's email address.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > If it is the case, then some of the existing rcu_read_lock() is
>> >> >> >> > > unnecessary?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Well, in many cases, especially depending on how kernel is
>> >> >> >> > compiled,
>> >> >> >> > that is true. But we want to keep these, as they also document
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > intend of the programmer. And allow us to make the kernel even
>> >> >> >> > more
>> >> >> >> > preempt-able in the future.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > At least, it sounds incorrect to only make an exception here
>> >> >> >> > > while keeping
>> >> >> >> > > other rcu_read_lock() as-is.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Let me be clear: I think you have spotted a problem, and we need
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > add rcu_read_lock() at least around the invocation of
>> >> >> >> > bpf_prog_run_xdp() or before around if-statement that call
>> >> >> >> > dev_map_bpf_prog_run(). (Hangbin please do this in V8).
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Thank you Martin for reviewing the code carefully enough to find
>> >> >> >> > this
>> >> >> >> > issue, that some drivers don't have a RCU-section around the full
>> >> >> >> > XDP
>> >> >> >> > code path in their NAPI-loop.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Question to Paul. (I will attempt to describe in generic terms
>> >> >> >> > what
>> >> >> >> > happens, but ref real-function names).
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > We are running in softirq/NAPI context, the driver will call a
>> >> >> >> > bq_enqueue() function for every packet (if calling
>> >> >> >> > xdp_do_redirect) ,
>> >> >> >> > some driver wrap this with a rcu_read_lock/unlock() section
>> >> >> >> > (other have
>> >> >> >> > a large RCU-read section, that include the flush operation).
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > In the bq_enqueue() function we have a per_cpu_ptr (that store the
>> >> >> >> > xdp_frame packets) that will get flushed/send in the call
>> >> >> >> > xdp_do_flush() (that end-up calling bq_xmit_all()). This flush
>> >> >> >> > will
>> >> >> >> > happen before we end our softirq/NAPI context.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The extension is that the per_cpu_ptr data structure (after this
>> >> >> >> > patch)
>> >> >> >> > store a pointer to an xdp_prog (which is a RCU object). In the
>> >> >> >> > flush
>> >> >> >> > operation (which we will wrap with RCU-read section), we will use
>> >> >> >> > this
>> >> >> >> > xdp_prog pointer. I can see that it is in-principle wrong to
>> >> >> >> > pass
>> >> >> >> > this-pointer between RCU-read sections, but I consider this safe
>> >> >> >> > as we
>> >> >> >> > are running under softirq/NAPI and the per_cpu_ptr is only valid
>> >> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> > this short interval.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I claim a grace/quiescent RCU cannot happen between these two
>> >> >> >> > RCU-read
>> >> >> >> > sections, but I might be wrong? (especially in the future or for
>> >> >> >> > RT).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If I am reading this correctly (ha!), a very high-level summary of
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > code in question is something like this:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > void foo(void)
>> >> >> > {
>> >> >> > local_bh_disable();
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > rcu_read_lock();
>> >> >> > p = rcu_dereference(gp);
>> >> >> > do_something_with(p);
>> >> >> > rcu_read_unlock();
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > do_something_else();
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > rcu_read_lock();
>> >> >> > do_some_other_thing(p);
>> >> >> > rcu_read_unlock();
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > local_bh_enable();
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > void bar(struct blat *new_gp)
>> >> >> > {
>> >> >> > struct blat *old_gp;
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > spin_lock(my_lock);
>> >> >> > old_gp = rcu_dereference_protected(gp,
>> >> >> > lock_held(my_lock));
>> >> >> > rcu_assign_pointer(gp, new_gp);
>> >> >> > spin_unlock(my_lock);
>> >> >> > synchronize_rcu();
>> >> >> > kfree(old_gp);
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, something like that (the object is freed using call_rcu() - but I
>> >> >> think that's equivalent, right?). And the question is whether we need
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> extend foo() so that is has one big rcu_read_lock() that covers the
>> >> >> whole lifetime of p.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, use of call_rcu() is an asynchronous version of synchronize_rcu().
>> >> > In fact, synchronize_rcu() is implemented in terms of call_rcu(). ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Right, gotcha!
>> >>
>> >> >> > I need to check up on -rt.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But first... In recent mainline kernels, the local_bh_disable()
>> >> >> > region
>> >> >> > will look like one big RCU read-side critical section. But don't try
>> >> >> > this prior to v4.20!!! In v4.19 and earlier, you would need to use
>> >> >> > both synchronize_rcu() and synchronize_rcu_bh() to make this work,
>> >> >> > or,
>> >> >> > for less latency, synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu, call_rcu_bh).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> OK. Variants of this code has been around since before then, but I
>> >> >> honestly have no idea what it looked like back then exactly...
>> >> >
>> >> > I know that feeling...
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Except that in that case, why not just drop the inner
>> >> >> > rcu_read_unlock()
>> >> >> > and rcu_read_lock() pair? Awkward function boundaries or some such?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well if we can just treat such a local_bh_disable()/enable() pair as
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> equivalent of rcu_read_lock()/unlock() then I suppose we could just get
>> >> >> rid of the inner ones. What about tools like lockdep; do they
>> >> >> understand
>> >> >> this, or are we likely to get complaints if we remove it?
>> >> >
>> >> > If you just got rid of the first rcu_read_unlock() and the second
>> >> > rcu_read_lock() in the code above, lockdep will understand.
>> >>
>> >> Right, but doing so entails going through all the drivers, which is what
>> >> we're trying to avoid :)
>> >
>> > I was afraid of that... ;-)
>> >
>> >> > However, if you instead get rid of -all- of the rcu_read_lock() and
>> >> > rcu_read_unlock() invocations in the code above, you would need to let
>> >> > lockdep know by adding rcu_read_lock_bh_held(). So instead of this:
>> >> >
>> >> > p = rcu_dereference(gp);
>> >> >
>> >> > You would do this:
>> >> >
>> >> > p = rcu_dereference_check(gp, rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
>> >> >
>> >> > This would be needed for mainline, regardless of -rt.
>> >>
>> >> OK. And as far as I can tell this is harmless for code paths that call
>> >> the same function but from a regular rcu_read_lock()-protected section
>> >> instead from a bh-disabled section, right?
>> >
>> > That is correct. That rcu_dereference_check() invocation will make
>> > lockdep be OK with rcu_read_lock() or with softirq being disabled.
>> > Or both, for that matter.
>>
>> OK, great, thank you for confirming my understanding!
>>
>> >> What happens, BTW, if we *don't* get rid of all the existing
>> >> rcu_read_lock() sections? Going back to your foo() example above, what
>> >> we're discussing is whether to add that second rcu_read_lock() around
>> >> do_some_other_thing(p). I.e., the first one around the rcu_dereference()
>> >> is already there (in the particular driver we're discussing), and the
>> >> local_bh_disable/enable() pair is already there. AFAICT from our
>> >> discussion, there really is not much point in adding that second
>> >> rcu_read_lock/unlock(), is there?
>> >
>> > From an algorithmic point of view, the second rcu_read_lock()
>> > and rcu_read_unlock() are redundant. Of course, there are also
>> > software-engineering considerations, including copy-pasta issues.
>> >
>> >> And because that first rcu_read_lock() around the rcu_dereference() is
>> >> already there, lockdep is not likely to complain either, so we're
>> >> basically fine? Except that the code is somewhat confusing as-is, of
>> >> course; i.e., we should probably fix it but it's not terribly urgent. Or?
>> >
>> > I am concerned about copy-pasta-induced bugs. Someone looks just at
>> > the code, fails to note the fact that softirq is disabled throughout,
>> > and decides that leaking a pointer from one RCU read-side critical
>> > section to a later one is just fine. :-/
>>
>> Yup, totally agreed that we need to fix this for the sake of the humans
>> reading the code; just wanted to make sure my understanding was correct
>> that we don't strictly need to do anything as far as the machines
>> executing it are concerned :)
>>
>> >> Hmm, looking at it now, it seems not all the lookup code is actually
>> >> doing rcu_dereference() at all, but rather just a plain READ_ONCE() with
>> >> a comment above it saying that RCU ensures objects won't disappear[0];
>> >> so I suppose we're at least safe from lockdep in that sense :P - but we
>> >> should definitely clean this up.
>> >>
>> >> [0] Exhibit A:
>> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/bpf/devmap.c#L391
>> >
>> > That use of READ_ONCE() will definitely avoid lockdep complaints,
>> > including those complaints that point out bugs. It also might get you
>> > sparse complaints if the RCU-protected pointer is marked with __rcu.
>>
>> It's not; it's the netdev_map member of this struct:
>>
>> struct bpf_dtab {
>> struct bpf_map map;
>> struct bpf_dtab_netdev **netdev_map; /* DEVMAP type only */
>> struct list_head list;
>>
>> /* these are only used for DEVMAP_HASH type maps */
>> struct hlist_head *dev_index_head;
>> spinlock_t index_lock;
>> unsigned int items;
>> u32 n_buckets;
>> };
>>
>> Will adding __rcu to such a dynamic array member do the right thing when
>> paired with rcu_dereference() on array members (i.e., in place of the
>> READ_ONCE in the code linked above)?
>
> The only thing __rcu will do is provide information to the sparse static
> analysis tool. Which will then gripe at you for applying READ_ONCE()
> to a __rcu pointer. But it is already griping at you for applying
> rcu_dereference() to something not marked __rcu, so... ;-)
Right, hence the need for a cleanup ;)
My question was more if it understood arrays, though. I.e., that
'netdev_map' is an array of RCU pointers, not an RCU pointer to an
array... Or am I maybe thinking that tool is way smarter than it is, and
it just complains for any access to that field that doesn't use
rcu_dereference()?
>> Also, while you're being so nice about confirming my understanding of
>> things: I always understood the point of rcu_dereference() (and __rcu on
>> struct members) to be annotations that document the lifetime
>> expectations of the object being pointed to, rather than a functional
>> change vs READ_ONCE()? Documentation that the static checkers can turn
>> into warnings, of course, but totally transparent in terms of the
>> generated code. Right? :)
>
> Yes for __rcu.
>
> Maybe for rcu_dereference(). Yes in that it is functionally the same
> as READ_ONCE(), no in that it is not the same as a simple C-language load.
Right, was going for "functionally the same" - cool!
>> >> >> > Especially given that if this works on -rt, it is probably because
>> >> >> > their variant of do_softirq() holds rcu_read_lock() across each
>> >> >> > softirq handler invocation. They do something similar for rwlocks.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Right. Guess we'll wait for your confirmation of that, then. Thanks! :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Looking at v5.11.4-rt11...
>> >> >
>> >> > And __local_bh_disable_ip() has added the required rcu_read_lock(),
>> >> > so dropping all the rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() calls would
>> >> > do the right thing in -rt. And lockdep would understand without the
>> >> > rcu_read_lock_bh_held(), but that is still required for mainline.
>> >>
>> >> Great, thanks for checking!
>> >>
>> >> So this brings to mind another question: Are there any performance
>> >> implications to nesting rcu_read_locks() inside each other? One
>> >> thing that would be fairly easy to do (in terms of how much code we have
>> >> to touch) is to just add a top-level rcu_read_lock() around the
>> >> napi_poll() call in the core dev code, thus making -rt and mainline
>> >> equivalent in that respect. Also, this would make it obvious that all
>> >> the RCU usage inside of NAPI is safe, without having to know about
>> >> bh_disable() and all that. But we obviously don't want to do that if it
>> >> is going to slow things down; WDYT?
>> >
>> > Both rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() are quite lightweight (zero for
>> > CONFIG_PREEMPT=n and about two nanoseconds per pair for CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
>> > on 2GHz x86) and can be nested quite deeply. So that approach should
>> > be fine from that viewpoint.
>>
>> OK, that may be fine, then. Guess I'll try it and benchmark (and compare
>> with the rcu_dereference_check() approach).
>
> Sounds good!
Awesome! Thanks a lot for explaining, and for bearing me and all my
stupid questions - I feel like I get closer to understanding RCU each
time I speak with you about it :)
>> > However, remaining in a single RCU read-side critical section forever
>> > will eventually OOM the system, so the code should periodically exit
>> > its top-level RCU read-side critical section, say, every few tens of
>> > milliseconds.
>>
>> Yup, NAPI already does this (there's a poll budget), so that should be
>> fine.
>
> Whew!!! ;-)
I know, right? ;) Although I do seem to recall you quite recently
helping me fix a case where it didn't quite interrupt itself enough, and
was causing hangs...
-Toke
