From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720C4C07E96 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 15:36:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D3161483 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 15:36:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232008AbhGHPjW (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jul 2021 11:39:22 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36220 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232011AbhGHPjW (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jul 2021 11:39:22 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x32e.google.com (mail-wm1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D093DC061760 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 08:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id g8-20020a1c9d080000b02901f13dd1672aso5117689wme.0 for ; Thu, 08 Jul 2021 08:36:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=9wMZ76+EWh/5Ioetg4LvlZ1Fqgk4RPqxatnt+uxY24s=; b=j+yR230QuFCdrtt1oOJkozHAv7KF5IkGOxXD39WCgXN4wqglQhDW6CYCjyyZA0akUN fx1d2rtFpEch1Wfzu0OL30tl5k5jfugAlaA/OUNX/mb7nLfvc+6KMHBXtOnNUFr/h0V2 Z93jjFAslS7E59ba6u5dDtXDqWXOyUa/EamnZ5+HY/WRlsI5xfWvcs1B1TL59Nqu+R8Y fiROSqzrCS7vt+jMITDtH9anRPUls0zwgBqdIbO06zoZFAeBKgSinRwEB4v2VXCyaWqs q+2I2DIQh1TXgWRtNBRMbWjzeBusxaPCD2zIeIp4DICdevo8jZz1rSMSqlIyJBiW1iJy D1uw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=9wMZ76+EWh/5Ioetg4LvlZ1Fqgk4RPqxatnt+uxY24s=; b=KMi9Q6GydhBGri+1hMRva5/IB/pnrfP7/S/0VIULKdDuONnIYm7oCoJdax1ixWzywJ 09FB7m6rsdGIu5p0NqYp4wPBTCV45JhoIZTcH3n+o3v/mP8EbRilYsqQuciCEMnuQxRv ddJ8WzcCMCZpdv6MNLaOWiDWHPFIgCJ+at9conlKutiHio6/FRMsyObAJMEtwfiJrnLs 94oJedYxDE8p6k3drphZ/lUFguiaa6pTi+hFN3FBT+jLqmk/4b8HcK6ZoqmtrnFCW/LN whSw+LAvqzxUYi2xAnmQupNJ4DLx4XfmSRJXwGxiHLJDvEx2av56Qd8zGydFQwmYP4Ql Dr1g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533mv+YxA3fRa3dEITnXunpOAYHz3vK2uryfZjBy+VHsyPfmk15M Dq+VyLajzlDNJDNlo5JpzSIdEA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzCTGQiriMUQ1Suopkoj3HhwNsbZxhVZZKhq8ThXg/wEVlc0m4yfBlD/rt8WQtzWqGUZJZVbg== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c852:: with SMTP id c18mr33270556wml.128.1625758597313; Thu, 08 Jul 2021 08:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from enceladus (ppp-94-66-242-227.home.otenet.gr. [94.66.242.227]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h14sm3082288wro.32.2021.07.08.08.36.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 08 Jul 2021 08:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 18:36:32 +0300 From: Ilias Apalodimas To: Alexander Duyck Cc: Yunsheng Lin , David Miller , Jakub Kicinski , linuxarm@openeuler.org, yisen.zhuang@huawei.com, Salil Mehta , thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com, Marcin Wojtas , Russell King - ARM Linux , hawk@kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , John Fastabend , Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra , Will Deacon , Matthew Wilcox , Vlastimil Babka , fenghua.yu@intel.com, guro@fb.com, peterx@redhat.com, Feng Tang , Jason Gunthorpe , mcroce@microsoft.com, Hugh Dickins , Jonathan Lemon , Alexander Lobakin , Willem de Bruijn , wenxu@ucloud.cn, cong.wang@bytedance.com, Kevin Hao , nogikh@google.com, Marco Elver , Netdev , LKML , bpf Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 1/2] page_pool: add page recycling support based on elevated refcnt Message-ID: References: <29403911-bc26-dd86-83b8-da3c1784d087@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 08:29:56AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 8:17 AM Ilias Apalodimas > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above expectation is based on that the last user will always > > > > > > > > > call page_pool_put_full_page() in order to do the recycling or do > > > > > > > > > the resource cleanup(dma unmaping..etc). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As the skb_free_head() and skb_release_data() have both checked the > > > > > > > > > skb->pp_recycle to call the page_pool_put_full_page() if needed, I > > > > > > > > > think we are safe for most case, the one case I am not so sure above > > > > > > > > > is the rx zero copy, which seems to also bump up the refcnt before > > > > > > > > > mapping the page to user space, we might need to ensure rx zero copy > > > > > > > > > is not the last user of the page or if it is the last user, make sure > > > > > > > > > it calls page_pool_put_full_page() too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but the skb->pp_recycle value is per skb, not per page. So my > > > > > > > > concern is that carrying around that value can be problematic as there > > > > > > > > are a number of possible cases where the pages might be > > > > > > > > unintentionally recycled. All it would take is for a packet to get > > > > > > > > cloned a few times and then somebody starts using pskb_expand_head and > > > > > > > > you would have multiple cases, possibly simultaneously, of entities > > > > > > > > trying to free the page. I just worry it opens us up to a number of > > > > > > > > possible races. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I missde something, but I thought the cloned SKBs would never trigger > > > > > > > the recycling path, since they are protected by the atomic dataref check in > > > > > > > skb_release_data(). What am I missing? > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you talking about the head frag? So normally a clone wouldn't > > > > > > cause an issue because the head isn't changed. In the case of the > > > > > > head_frag we should be safe since pskb_expand_head will just kmalloc > > > > > > the new head and clears head_frag so it won't trigger > > > > > > page_pool_return_skb_page on the head_frag since the dataref just goes > > > > > > from 2 to 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that pskb_expand_head memcopies the page frags over and > > > > > > takes a reference on the pages. At that point you would have two skbs > > > > > > both pointing to the same set of pages and each one ready to call > > > > > > page_pool_return_skb_page on the pages at any time and possibly racing > > > > > > with the other. > > > > > > > > > > Ok let me make sure I get the idea properly. > > > > > When pskb_expand_head is called, the new dataref will be 1, but the > > > > > head_frag will be set to 0, in which case the recycling code won't be > > > > > called for that skb. > > > > > So you are mostly worried about a race within the context of > > > > > pskb_expand_skb() between copying the frags, releasing the previous head > > > > > and preparing the new one (on a cloned skb)? > > > > > > > > The race is between freeing the two skbs. So the original and the > > > > clone w/ the expanded head will have separate instances of the page. I > > > > am pretty certain there is a race if the two of them start trying to > > > > free the page frags at the same time. > > > > > > > > > > Right, I completely forgot calling __skb_frag_unref() before releasing the > > > head ... > > > You are right, this will be a race. Let me go back to the original mail > > > thread and see what we can do > > > > > > > What do you think about resetting pp_recycle bit on pskb_expand_head()? > > I assume you mean specifically in the cloned case? > Yes. Even if we do it unconditionally we'll just loose non-cloned buffers from the recycling. I'll send a patch later today. > > If my memory serves me right Eric wanted that from the beginning. Then the > > cloned/expanded SKB won't trigger the recycling. If that skb hits the free > > path first, we'll end up recycling the fragments eventually. If the > > original one goes first, we'll just unmap the page(s) and freeing the cloned > > one will free all the remaining buffers. > > I *think* that should be fine. Effectively what we are doing is making > it so that if the original skb is freed first the pages are released, > and if it is released after the clone/expended skb then it can be > recycled. Exactly > > The issue is we have to maintain it so that there will be exactly one > caller of the recycling function for the pages. So any spot where we > are updating skb->head we will have to see if there is a clone and if > so we have to clear the pp_recycle flag on our skb so that it doesn't > try to recycle the page frags as well. Correct. I'll keep looking around in case there's something less fragile we can do Thanks /Ilias