lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next] net: add in_softirq() debug checking in napi_consume_skb()
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:57:30 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2020/11/3 3:41, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:14:32 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >> On 2020/11/1 6:38, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:34:48 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >>>> The current semantic for napi_consume_skb() is that caller need
> >>>> to provide non-zero budget when calling from NAPI context, and
> >>>> breaking this semantic will cause hard to debug problem, because
> >>>> _kfree_skb_defer() need to run in atomic context in order to push
> >>>> the skb to the particular cpu' napi_alloc_cache atomically.
> >>>>
> >>>> So add a in_softirq() debug checking in napi_consume_skb() to catch
> >>>> this kind of error.
> >>>>
> >>>> Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
> >>>
> >>>> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> >>>> index 1ba8f01..1834007 100644
> >>>> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> >>>> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> >>>> @@ -897,6 +897,10 @@ void napi_consume_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, int budget)
> >>>> return;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> + DEBUG_NET_WARN(!in_softirq(),
> >>>> + "%s is called with non-zero budget outside softirq context.\n",
> >>>> + __func__);
> >>>
> >>> Can't we use lockdep instead of defining our own knobs?
> >>
> >> From the first look, using the below seems better than defining our
> >> own knobs, because there is similar lockdep_assert_in_irq() checking
> >> already and lockdep_assert_in_*() is NULL-OP when CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> >> is not defined.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Like this maybe?
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> >>> index f5594879175a..5253a167d00c 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> >>> @@ -594,6 +594,14 @@ do { \
> >>> this_cpu_read(hardirqs_enabled))); \
> >>> } while (0)
> >>>
> >>> +#define lockdep_assert_in_softirq() \
> >>> +do { \
> >>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(__lockdep_enabled && \
> >>> + (softirq_count() == 0 || \
> >>> + this_cpu_read(hardirq_context))); \
> >>
> >> Using in_softirq() seems more obvious then using softirq_count()?
> >> And there is below comment above avoiding the using of in_softirq(), maybe
> >> that is why you use softirq_count() directly here?
> >> "softirq_count() == 0" still mean we are not in the SoftIRQ context and
> >> BH is not disabled. right? Perhap lockdep_assert_in_softirq_or_bh_disabled()
> >> is more obvious?
> >
> > Let's add Peter to the recipients to get his opinion.
> >
> > We have a per-cpu resource which is also accessed from BH (see
> > _kfree_skb_defer()).
> >
> > We're trying to come up with the correct lockdep incantation for it.
>
> Hi, Peter
> Any suggestion?

Let's just try lockdep_assert_in_softirq() and see if anyone complains.
People are more likely to respond to a patch than a discussion.

> >> /*
> >> * Are we doing bottom half or hardware interrupt processing?
> >> *
> >> * in_irq() - We're in (hard) IRQ context
> >> * in_softirq() - We have BH disabled, or are processing softirqs
> >> * in_interrupt() - We're in NMI,IRQ,SoftIRQ context or have BH disabled
> >> * in_serving_softirq() - We're in softirq context
> >> * in_nmi() - We're in NMI context
> >> * in_task() - We're in task context
> >> *
> >> * Note: due to the BH disabled confusion: in_softirq(),in_interrupt() really
> >> * should not be used in new code.
> >> */
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, is there any particular reason we do the "this_cpu_read(hardirq_context)"
> >> checking?
> >
> > Accessing BH resources from a hard IRQ context would be a bug, we may
> > have interrupted a BH, so AFAIU softirq_count() != 0, but we can nest
> > calls to _kfree_skb_defer().
>
> In that case, maybe just call lockdep_assert_in_irq() is enough?

TBH the last sentence I wrote isn't clear even to me at this point ;D

Maybe using just the macros from preempt.h - like this?

#define lockdep_assert_in_softirq() \
do { \
WARN_ON_ONCE(__lockdep_enabled && \
(!in_softirq() || in_irq() || in_nmi()) \
} while (0)

We know what we're doing so in_softirq() should be fine (famous last
words).

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-18 16:44    [W:1.847 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site