Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next] net: use in_softirq() to indicate the NAPI context in napi_consume_skb() | From | Eric Dumazet <> | Date | Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:09:14 +0200 |
| |
On 9/21/20 10:40 AM, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > On 2020/9/21 16:17, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:10 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 2020/9/21 15:19, Eric Dumazet wrote: >>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 4:08 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> When napi_consume_skb() is called in the tx desc cleaning process, >>>>> it is usually in the softirq context(BH disabled, or are processing >>>>> softirqs), but it may also be in the task context, such as in the >>>>> netpoll or loopback selftest process. >>>>> >>>>> Currently napi_consume_skb() uses non-zero budget to indicate the >>>>> NAPI context, the driver writer may provide the wrong budget when >>>>> tx desc cleaning function is reused for both NAPI and non-NAPI >>>>> context, see [1]. >>>>> >>>>> So this patch uses in_softirq() to indicate the NAPI context, which >>>>> doesn't necessarily mean in NAPI context, but it shouldn't care if >>>>> NAPI context or not as long as it runs in softirq context or with BH >>>>> disabled, then _kfree_skb_defer() will push the skb to the particular >>>>> cpu' napi_alloc_cache atomically. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/9/15/38 >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> note that budget parameter is not removed in this patch because it >>>>> involves many driver changes, we can remove it in separate patch if >>>>> this patch is accepted. >>>>> --- >>>>> net/core/skbuff.c | 6 ++++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c >>>>> index e077447..03d0d28 100644 >>>>> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c >>>>> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c >>>>> @@ -895,8 +895,10 @@ void __kfree_skb_defer(struct sk_buff *skb) >>>>> >>>>> void napi_consume_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, int budget) >>>>> { >>>>> - /* Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll */ >>>>> - if (unlikely(!budget)) { >>>>> + /* called by non-softirq context, which usually means non-NAPI >>>>> + * context, like netpoll. >>>>> + */ >>>>> + if (unlikely(!in_softirq())) { >>>>> dev_consume_skb_any(skb); >>>>> return; >>>>> } >>>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> I do not think we should add this kind of fuzzy logic, just because >>>> _one_ driver author made a mistake. >>>> >>>> Add a disable_bh() in the driver slow path, and accept the _existing_ >>>> semantic, the one that was understood by dozens. >>> >>> As my understanding, this patch did not change _existing_ semantic, >>> it still only call _kfree_skb_defer() in softirq context. This patch >>> just remove the requirement that a softirq context hint need to be >>> provided to decide whether calling _kfree_skb_defer(). >> >> I do not want to remove the requirement. >> >>> >>> Yes, we can add DEBUG_NET() clauses to catch this kind of error as >>> you suggested. >>> >>> But why we need such a debug clauses, when we can decide if delaying >>> skb freeing is possible in napi_consume_skb(), why not just use >>> in_softirq() to make this API more easy to use? Just as __dev_kfree_skb_any() >>> API use "in_irq() || irqs_disabled()" checking to handle the irq context >>> and non-irq context. >> >> >> I just do not like your patch. >> >> Copying another piece of fuzzy logic, inherited from legacy code is >> not an excuse. >> >> Add a local_bh_disable() in the driver slow path to meet _existing_ >> requirement, so that we can keep the hot path fast. > > "!in_softirq()" checking make the napi_consume_skb() slower than > "!budget" checking? do I miss something?
Yes, you missed that we can _remove_ this condition completely, if drivers make sure to always have BH disabled.
> > As a matter of fact, the hns3 driver has fixed this problem by > passing zero-budget to napi_consume_skb() in non-NAPI context, this > patch is more about how to avoid or catch this kind of error.
I think I understood this. Having one error in hns3 does not mean we are going to slow down the stack.
> > So your opinion is still to catch this kind of error using something > like DEBUG_NET() clauses? >
Yes.
Again, we want to keep fast path fast, not something that is an swiss army knife.
| |