All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
To: linux-can@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@gmx.net>,
	Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC] can: bcm: use call_rcu() instead of costly synchronize_rcu()
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 20:32:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220520183239.19111-1-socketcan@hartkopp.net> (raw)

In commit d5f9023fa61e ("can: bcm: delay release of struct bcm_op after
synchronize_rcu()") Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo introduced two
synchronize_rcu() calls in bcm_release() (only once at socket close) and
in bcm_delete_rx_op() (called on removal of each single bcm_op).

Unfortunately this slow removal of the bcm_op's affects user space
applications like cansniffer where the modification of a filter removes
2048 bcm_op's which blocks the cansniffer application for 40(!) seconds.

In commit 181d4447905d ("can: gw: use call_rcu() instead of costly
synchronize_rcu()") Eric Dumazet replaced the synchronize_rcu() calls
with several call_rcu()'s to safely remove the data structures after the
removal of CAN ID subscriptions with can_rx_unregister() calls.

This patch adopts Erics approach for the can-bcm which should be
applicable since the removal of tasklet_kill() in bcm_remove_op() and
the introduction of the HRTIMER_MODE_SOFT timer handling in Linux 5.4.

Fixes: d5f9023fa61e ("can: bcm: delay release of struct bcm_op after synchronize_rcu()") # >= 5.4
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@gmx.net>
Cc: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
---
 net/can/bcm.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
index 65ee1b784a30..e60161bec850 100644
--- a/net/can/bcm.c
+++ b/net/can/bcm.c
@@ -98,10 +98,11 @@ static inline u64 get_u64(const struct canfd_frame *cp, int offset)
 	return *(u64 *)(cp->data + offset);
 }
 
 struct bcm_op {
 	struct list_head list;
+	struct rcu_head rcu;
 	int ifindex;
 	canid_t can_id;
 	u32 flags;
 	unsigned long frames_abs, frames_filtered;
 	struct bcm_timeval ival1, ival2;
@@ -716,24 +717,31 @@ static struct bcm_op *bcm_find_op(struct list_head *ops,
 	}
 
 	return NULL;
 }
 
-static void bcm_remove_op(struct bcm_op *op)
+static void bcm_free_op_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu_head)
 {
-	hrtimer_cancel(&op->timer);
-	hrtimer_cancel(&op->thrtimer);
+	struct bcm_op *op = container_of(rcu_head, struct bcm_op, rcu);
 
 	if ((op->frames) && (op->frames != &op->sframe))
 		kfree(op->frames);
 
 	if ((op->last_frames) && (op->last_frames != &op->last_sframe))
 		kfree(op->last_frames);
 
 	kfree(op);
 }
 
+static void bcm_remove_op(struct bcm_op *op)
+{
+	hrtimer_cancel(&op->timer);
+	hrtimer_cancel(&op->thrtimer);
+
+	call_rcu(&op->rcu, bcm_free_op_rcu);
+}
+
 static void bcm_rx_unreg(struct net_device *dev, struct bcm_op *op)
 {
 	if (op->rx_reg_dev == dev) {
 		can_rx_unregister(dev_net(dev), dev, op->can_id,
 				  REGMASK(op->can_id), bcm_rx_handler, op);
@@ -755,10 +763,13 @@ static int bcm_delete_rx_op(struct list_head *ops, struct bcm_msg_head *mh,
 
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(op, n, ops, list) {
 		if ((op->can_id == mh->can_id) && (op->ifindex == ifindex) &&
 		    (op->flags & CAN_FD_FRAME) == (mh->flags & CAN_FD_FRAME)) {
 
+			/* disable automatic timer on frame reception */
+			op->flags |= RX_NO_AUTOTIMER;
+
 			/*
 			 * Don't care if we're bound or not (due to netdev
 			 * problems) can_rx_unregister() is always a save
 			 * thing to do here.
 			 */
@@ -783,11 +794,10 @@ static int bcm_delete_rx_op(struct list_head *ops, struct bcm_msg_head *mh,
 						  op->can_id,
 						  REGMASK(op->can_id),
 						  bcm_rx_handler, op);
 
 			list_del(&op->list);
-			synchronize_rcu();
 			bcm_remove_op(op);
 			return 1; /* done */
 		}
 	}
 
-- 
2.30.2


             reply	other threads:[~2022-05-20 18:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-20 18:32 Oliver Hartkopp [this message]
2022-07-04  4:37 ` [PATCH RFC] can: bcm: use call_rcu() instead of costly synchronize_rcu() Oliver Hartkopp

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20220520183239.19111-1-socketcan@hartkopp.net \
    --to=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
    --cc=cascardo@canonical.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=linux-can@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nslusarek@gmx.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.