From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Yan Zhai <yan@cloudflare.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>,
Coco Li <lixiaoyan@google.com>, Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@fb.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@cloudflare.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 08:57:07 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55900c6a-f181-4c5c-8de2-bca640c4af3e@paulmck-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <888d2f90-6d2f-4d4f-a9f6-fbf2f2611821@joelfernandes.org>
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 09:21:48AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>
> On 2/28/2024 5:58 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 02:48:44PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 2:31 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 14:19:11 -0800
> >>> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, to your initial point, cond_resched() does eventually invoke
> >>>>>> preempt_schedule_common(), so you are quite correct that as far as
> >>>>>> Tasks RCU is concerned, cond_resched() is not a quiescent state.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for confirming. :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> However, given that the current Tasks RCU use cases wait for trampolines
> >>>> to be evacuated, Tasks RCU could make the choice that cond_resched()
> >>>> be a quiescent state, for example, by adjusting rcu_all_qs() and
> >>>> .rcu_urgent_qs accordingly.
> >>>>
> >>>> But this seems less pressing given the chance that cond_resched() might
> >>>> go away in favor of lazy preemption.
> >>>
> >>> Although cond_resched() is technically a "preemption point" and not truly a
> >>> voluntary schedule, I would be happy to state that it's not allowed to be
> >>> called from trampolines, or their callbacks. Now the question is, does BPF
> >>> programs ever call cond_resched()? I don't think they do.
> >>>
> >>> [ Added Alexei ]
> >>
> >> I'm a bit lost in this thread :)
> >> Just answering the above question.
> >> bpf progs never call cond_resched() directly.
> >> But there are sleepable (aka faultable) bpf progs that
> >> can call some helper or kfunc that may call cond_resched()
> >> in some path.
> >> sleepable bpf progs are protected by rcu_tasks_trace.
> >> That's a very different one vs rcu_tasks.
> >
> > Suppose that the various cond_resched() invocations scattered throughout
> > the kernel acted as RCU Tasks quiescent states, so that as soon as a
> > given task executed a cond_resched(), synchronize_rcu_tasks() might
> > return or call_rcu_tasks() might invoke its callback.
> >
> > Would that cause BPF any trouble?
> >
> > My guess is "no", because it looks like BPF is using RCU Tasks (as you
> > say, as opposed to RCU Tasks Trace) only to wait for execution to leave a
> > trampoline. But I trust you much more than I trust myself on this topic!
>
> But it uses RCU Tasks Trace as well (for sleepable bpf programs), not just
> Tasks? Looks like that's what Alexei said above as well, and I confirmed it in
> bpf/trampoline.c
>
> /* The trampoline without fexit and fmod_ret progs doesn't call original
> * function and doesn't use percpu_ref.
> * Use call_rcu_tasks_trace() to wait for sleepable progs to finish.
> * Then use call_rcu_tasks() to wait for the rest of trampoline asm
> * and normal progs.
> */
> call_rcu_tasks_trace(&im->rcu, __bpf_tramp_image_put_rcu_tasks);
>
> The code comment says it uses both.
BPF does quite a few interesting things with these.
But would you like to look at the update-side uses of RCU Tasks Rude
to see if lazy preemption affects them? I don't believe that there
are any problems here, but we do need to check.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-29 16:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-27 15:44 [PATCH] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll Yan Zhai
2024-02-27 16:44 ` Eric Dumazet
2024-02-27 18:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-27 21:22 ` Yan Zhai
2024-02-27 22:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-28 3:10 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-02-28 4:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-28 14:43 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-02-28 15:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-28 15:35 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-02-28 15:57 ` Yan Zhai
2024-02-28 11:50 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2024-02-28 15:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-28 15:48 ` Yan Zhai
2024-02-28 17:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-28 15:37 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-02-28 16:37 ` Yan Zhai
2024-02-28 17:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-28 20:14 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-02-28 21:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-28 21:27 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-02-28 21:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-28 22:10 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-02-28 22:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-28 22:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-02-28 22:48 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-02-28 22:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-29 14:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-02-29 16:57 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2024-02-29 17:41 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-02-29 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-02 2:24 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-03 0:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-03 1:01 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-04 9:16 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-05 17:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-05 19:57 ` Mark Rutland
2024-03-05 21:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-06 16:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-03-07 16:57 ` Mark Rutland
2024-03-07 18:34 ` Mark Rutland
2024-03-07 18:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-03-07 18:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-04 9:16 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-02-28 22:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-27 21:17 ` Yan Zhai
2024-02-28 23:53 ` Yan Zhai
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=55900c6a-f181-4c5c-8de2-bca640c4af3e@paulmck-laptop \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=alexanderduyck@fb.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=hannes@stressinduktion.org \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=kernel-team@cloudflare.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lixiaoyan@google.com \
--cc=lorenzo@kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=weiwan@google.com \
--cc=yan@cloudflare.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).