Re: [PATCH net-next v4 05/17] net: sched: traverse chains in block with tcf_get_next_chain()

[Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:07 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Cong,
>
> Thanks for reviewing!
>
> On Fri 15 Feb 2019 at 22:21, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (Sorry for joining this late.)
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:56 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@mellanox.com> wrote:
> >> @@ -2432,7 +2474,11 @@ static int tc_dump_chain(struct sk_buff *skb, struct netlink_callback *cb)
> >>         index_start = cb->args[0];
> >>         index = 0;
> >>
> >> -       list_for_each_entry(chain, &block->chain_list, list) {
> >> +       for (chain = __tcf_get_next_chain(block, NULL);
> >> +            chain;
> >> +            chain_prev = chain,
> >> +                    chain = __tcf_get_next_chain(block, chain),
> >> +                    tcf_chain_put(chain_prev)) {
> >
> > Why do you want to take the block->lock in each iteration
> > of the loop rather than taking once for the whole loop?
>
> This loop calls classifier ops callback in tc_chain_fill_node(). I don't
> call any classifier ops callbacks while holding block or chain lock in
> this change because the goal is to achieve fine-grained locking for data
> structures used by filter update path. Locking per-block or per-chain is
> much coarser than taking reference counters to parent structures and
> allowing classifiers to implement their own locking.

That is the problem, when we have N filter chains in a block, you
lock and unlock mutex N times... And what __tcf_get_next_chain()
does is basically just retrieving the next entry in the list, so the
overhead of mutex is likely more than the list operation itself in
contention situation.

Now I can see why you complained about mutex before, it is
how you use it, not actually its own problem. :)

>
> In this case call to ops->tmplt_dump() is probably quite fast and its
> execution time doesn't depend on number of filters on the classifier, so
> releasing block->lock on each iteration doesn't provide much benefit, if
> at all. However, it is easier for me to reason about locking correctness
> in this refactoring by following a simple rule that no locks (besides
> rtnl mutex) can be held when calling classifier ops callbacks.

Well, for me, a hierarchy locking is always simple when you take
them in the right order, that is locking the larger-scope lock first
and then smaller-scope one.

The way you use the locking here is actually harder for me to
review, because it is hard to valid its atomicity when you unlock
the larger scope lock and re-take the smaller scope lock. You
use refcnt to ensure it will not go way, but that is still far from
guarantee of the atomicity.

For example, tp->ops->change() which changes an existing
filter, I don't see you lock either block->lock or
chain->filter_chain_lock when calling it. How does it even work?

Thanks.