Re: [RFC v3] net: sched: implement TCQ_F_CAN_BYPASS for lockless qdisc

From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
	daniel@iogearbox.net, andriin@fb.com, edumazet@google.com,
	weiwan@google.com, cong.wang@bytedance.com, ap420073@gmail.com,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxarm@openeuler.org, mkl@pengutronix.de,
	linux-can@vger.kernel.org, jhs@mojatatu.com,
	xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us, andrii@kernel.org,
	kafai@fb.com, songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com,
	john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, jonas.bonn@netrounds.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
	mzhivich@akamai.com, johunt@akamai.com, albcamus@gmail.com,
	kehuan.feng@gmail.com, a.fatoum@pengutronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC v3] net: sched: implement TCQ_F_CAN_BYPASS for lockless qdisc
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 22:00:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210322200033.uphemtsunfqsvjej@skbuf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1616404156-11772-1-git-send-email-linyunsheng@huawei.com>

Hi Yunsheng,

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 05:09:16PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> Currently pfifo_fast has both TCQ_F_CAN_BYPASS and TCQ_F_NOLOCK
> flag set, but queue discipline by-pass does not work for lockless
> qdisc because skb is always enqueued to qdisc even when the qdisc
> is empty, see __dev_xmit_skb().
> 
> This patch calls sch_direct_xmit() to transmit the skb directly
> to the driver for empty lockless qdisc too, which aviod enqueuing
> and dequeuing operation. qdisc->empty is set to false whenever a
> skb is enqueued, see pfifo_fast_enqueue(), and is set to true when
> skb dequeuing return NULL, see pfifo_fast_dequeue().
> 
> There is a data race between enqueue/dequeue and qdisc->empty
> setting, qdisc->empty is only used as a hint, so we need to call
> sch_may_need_requeuing() to see if the queue is really empty and if
> there is requeued skb, which has higher priority than the current
> skb.
> 
> The performance for ip_forward test increases about 10% with this
> patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
> ---
> Hi, Vladimir and Ahmad
> 	Please give it a test to see if there is any out of order
> packet for this patch, which has removed the priv->lock added in
> RFC v2.
> 
> There is a data race as below:
> 
>       CPU1                                   CPU2
> qdisc_run_begin(q)                            .
>         .                                q->enqueue()
> sch_may_need_requeuing()                      .
>     return true                               .
>         .                                     .
>         .                                     .
>     q->enqueue()                              .
> 
> When above happen, the skb enqueued by CPU1 is dequeued after the
> skb enqueued by CPU2 because sch_may_need_requeuing() return true.
> If there is not qdisc bypass, the CPU1 has better chance to queue
> the skb quicker than CPU2.
> 
> This patch does not take care of the above data race, because I
> view this as similar as below:
> 
> Even at the same time CPU1 and CPU2 write the skb to two socket
> which both heading to the same qdisc, there is no guarantee that
> which skb will hit the qdisc first, becuase there is a lot of
> factor like interrupt/softirq/cache miss/scheduling afffecting
> that.
> 
> So I hope the above data race will not cause problem for Vladimir
> and Ahmad.
> ---

Preliminary results on my test setup look fine, but please allow me to
run the canfdtest overnight, since as you say, races are still
theoretically possible.