Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 14/15] net: bonding: ensure .ndo_get_stats64 can sleep

From: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>
To: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	George McCollister <george.mccollister@gmail.com>,
	Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>,
	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@gmail.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com>,
	Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@ovn.org>,
	Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 14/15] net: bonding: ensure .ndo_get_stats64 can sleep
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:00:46 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8201.1610503246@famine> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4c4c08e37aeff87f0dd2ea52037c32d07d2868d1.camel@kernel.org>

Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org> wrote:

>On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 16:37 +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:38:49PM -0800, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>> > GFP_ATOMIC is a little bit aggressive especially when user daemons
>> > are
>> > periodically reading stats. This can be avoided.
>> > 
>> > You can pre-allocate with GFP_KERNEL an array with an "approximate"
>> > size.
>> > then fill the array up with whatever slaves the the bond has at
>> > that
>> > moment, num_of_slaves  can be less, equal or more than the array
>> > you
>> > just allocated but we shouldn't care ..
>> > 
>> > something like:
>> > rcu_read_lock()
>> > nslaves = bond_get_num_slaves();
>> > rcu_read_unlock()

	Can be nslaves = READ_ONCE(bond->slave_cnt), or, for just active
slaves:

	struct bond_up_slave *slaves;
	slaves = rcu_dereference(bond->slave_arr);
	nslaves = slaves ? READ_ONCE(slaves->count) : 0;

>> > sarray = kcalloc(nslaves, sizeof(struct bonding_slave_dev),
>> > GFP_KERNEL);
>> > rcu_read_lock();
>> > bond_fill_slaves_array(bond, sarray); // also do: dev_hold()
>> > rcu_read_unlock();
>> > 
>> > 
>> > bond_get_slaves_array_stats(sarray);
>> > 
>> > bond_put_slaves_array(sarray);
>> 
>> I don't know what to say about acquiring RCU read lock twice and
>> traversing the list of interfaces three or four times.
>
>You can optimize this by tracking #num_slaves.

	I think that the set of active slaves changing between the two
calls will be a rare exception, and that the number of slaves is
generally small (more than 2 is uncommon in my experience).

>> On the other hand, what's the worst that can happen if the GFP_ATOMIC
>> memory allocation fails. It's not like there is any data loss.
>> User space will retry when there is less memory pressure.
>
>Anyway Up to you, i just don't like it when we use GFP_ATOMIC when it
>can be avoided, especially for periodic jobs, like stats polling.. 

	And, for the common case, I suspect that an array allocation
will have lower overhead than a loop that allocates once per slave.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com