From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Yan Zhai <yan@cloudflare.com>,
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>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@cloudflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:32:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d633c5b9-53a5-4cd6-9dbb-6623bb74c00b@paulmck-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iJQX14C1Qb_qbTVG4yoG26Cq7Ct+2qK_8T-Ok2JDdTGEA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 05:44:17PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 4:44 PM Yan Zhai <yan@cloudflare.com> wrote:
> >
> > We noticed task RCUs being blocked when threaded NAPIs are very busy in
> > production: detaching any BPF tracing programs, i.e. removing a ftrace
> > trampoline, will simply block for very long in rcu_tasks_wait_gp. This
> > ranges from hundreds of seconds to even an hour, severely harming any
> > observability tools that rely on BPF tracing programs. It can be
> > easily reproduced locally with following setup:
> >
> > ip netns add test1
> > ip netns add test2
> >
> > ip -n test1 link add veth1 type veth peer name veth2 netns test2
> >
> > ip -n test1 link set veth1 up
> > ip -n test1 link set lo up
> > ip -n test2 link set veth2 up
> > ip -n test2 link set lo up
> >
> > ip -n test1 addr add 192.168.1.2/31 dev veth1
> > ip -n test1 addr add 1.1.1.1/32 dev lo
> > ip -n test2 addr add 192.168.1.3/31 dev veth2
> > ip -n test2 addr add 2.2.2.2/31 dev lo
> >
> > ip -n test1 route add default via 192.168.1.3
> > ip -n test2 route add default via 192.168.1.2
> >
> > for i in `seq 10 210`; do
> > for j in `seq 10 210`; do
> > ip netns exec test2 iptables -I INPUT -s 3.3.$i.$j -p udp --dport 5201
> > done
> > done
> >
> > ip netns exec test2 ethtool -K veth2 gro on
> > ip netns exec test2 bash -c 'echo 1 > /sys/class/net/veth2/threaded'
> > ip netns exec test1 ethtool -K veth1 tso off
> >
> > Then run an iperf3 client/server and a bpftrace script can trigger it:
> >
> > ip netns exec test2 iperf3 -s -B 2.2.2.2 >/dev/null&
> > ip netns exec test1 iperf3 -c 2.2.2.2 -B 1.1.1.1 -u -l 1500 -b 3g -t 100 >/dev/null&
> > bpftrace -e 'kfunc:__napi_poll{@=count();} interval:s:1{exit();}'
> >
> > Above reproduce for net-next kernel with following RCU and preempt
> > configuraitons:
> >
> > # RCU Subsystem
> > CONFIG_TREE_RCU=y
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y
> > # CONFIG_RCU_EXPERT is not set
> > CONFIG_SRCU=y
> > CONFIG_TREE_SRCU=y
> > CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_GENERIC=y
> > CONFIG_TASKS_RCU=y
> > CONFIG_TASKS_RUDE_RCU=y
> > CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU=y
> > CONFIG_RCU_STALL_COMMON=y
> > CONFIG_RCU_NEED_SEGCBLIST=y
> > # end of RCU Subsystem
> > # RCU Debugging
> > # CONFIG_RCU_SCALE_TEST is not set
> > # CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST is not set
> > # CONFIG_RCU_REF_SCALE_TEST is not set
> > CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT=21
> > CONFIG_RCU_EXP_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT=0
> > # CONFIG_RCU_TRACE is not set
> > # CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG is not set
> > # end of RCU Debugging
> >
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_BUILD=y
> > # CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y
> > # CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=y
> > CONFIG_PREEMPTION=y
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y
> > CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y
> > CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL=y
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_NOTIFIERS=y
> > # CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is not set
> > # CONFIG_PREEMPT_TRACER is not set
> > # CONFIG_PREEMPTIRQ_DELAY_TEST is not set
> >
> > An interesting observation is that, while tasks RCUs are blocked,
> > related NAPI thread is still being scheduled (even across cores)
> > regularly. Looking at the gp conditions, I am inclining to cond_resched
> > after each __napi_poll being the problem: cond_resched enters the
> > scheduler with PREEMPT bit, which does not account as a gp for tasks
> > RCUs. Meanwhile, since the thread has been frequently resched, the
> > normal scheduling point (no PREEMPT bit, accounted as a task RCU gp)
> > seems to have very little chance to kick in. Given the nature of "busy
> > polling" program, such NAPI thread won't have task->nvcsw or task->on_rq
> > updated (other gp conditions), the result is that such NAPI thread is
> > put on RCU holdouts list for indefinitely long time.
> >
> > This is simply fixed by mirroring the ksoftirqd behavior: after
> > NAPI/softirq work, raise a RCU QS to help expedite the RCU period. No
> > more blocking afterwards for the same setup.
> >
> > Fixes: 29863d41bb6e ("net: implement threaded-able napi poll loop support")
> > Signed-off-by: Yan Zhai <yan@cloudflare.com>
> > ---
> > net/core/dev.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> > index 275fd5259a4a..6e41263ff5d3 100644
> > --- a/net/core/dev.c
> > +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> > @@ -6773,6 +6773,10 @@ static int napi_threaded_poll(void *data)
> > net_rps_action_and_irq_enable(sd);
> > }
> > skb_defer_free_flush(sd);
Please put a comment here stating that RCU readers cannot cross
this point.
I need to add lockdep to rcu_softirq_qs() to catch placing this in an
RCU read-side critical section. And a header comment noting that from
an RCU perspective, it acts as a momentary enabling of preemption.
> > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> > + rcu_softirq_qs();
> > +
> > local_bh_enable();
> >
> > if (!repoll)
> > --
> > 2.30.2
> >
>
> Hmm....
> Why napi_busy_loop() does not have a similar problem ?
>
> It is unclear why rcu_all_qs() in __cond_resched() is guarded by
>
> #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> rcu_all_qs();
> #endif
The theory is that PREEMPT_RCU kernels have preemption, and get their
quiescent states that way.
The more recent practice involves things like PREEMPT_DYNAMIC and maybe
soon PREEMPT_AUTO, which might require adjustments, so thank you for
pointing this out!
Back on the patch, my main other concern is that someone somewhere might
be using something like synchronize_rcu() to wait for all in-progress
softirq handlers to complete. But I don't know of such a thing, and if
there is, there are workarounds, including synchronize_rcu_tasks().
So something to be aware of, not (as far as I know) something to block
this commit.
With the added comment:
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-27 18:32 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 [this message]
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
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=d633c5b9-53a5-4cd6-9dbb-6623bb74c00b@paulmck-laptop \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=alexanderduyck@fb.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=kernel-team@cloudflare.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lixiaoyan@google.com \
--cc=lorenzo@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.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).