From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
Vadym Kochan <vkochan@marvell.com>,
Taras Chornyi <tchornyi@marvell.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
Marek Behun <kabel@blackhole.sk>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@gmail.com>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@microchip.com>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@mediatek.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
George McCollister <george.mccollister@gmail.com>,
Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@nxp.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@microchip.com>,
Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com>,
Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com>,
Karsten Graul <kgraul@linux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>, Vlad Buslov <vladbu@nvidia.com>,
Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>, Mark Bloch <mbloch@nvidia.com>,
Roi Dayan <roid@nvidia.com>,
Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@waldekranz.com>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/5] Make SWITCHDEV_FDB_{ADD,DEL}_TO_DEVICE blocking
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:16:48 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YSORsKDOwklF19Gm@shredder> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210823110046.xuuo37kpsxdbl6c2@skbuf>
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 02:00:46PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 01:47:57PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 08:44:49PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 08:06:00PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 04:31:45PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > > 3. There is a larger issue that SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE events are
> > > > > deferred by drivers even from code paths that are initially blocking
> > > > > (are running in process context):
> > > > >
> > > > > br_fdb_add
> > > > > -> __br_fdb_add
> > > > > -> fdb_add_entry
> > > > > -> fdb_notify
> > > > > -> br_switchdev_fdb_notify
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems fairly trivial to move the fdb_notify call outside of the
> > > > > atomic section of fdb_add_entry, but with switchdev offering only an
> > > > > API where the SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE is atomic, drivers would
> > > > > still have to defer these events and are unable to provide
> > > > > synchronous feedback to user space (error codes, extack).
> > > > >
> > > > > The above issues would warrant an attempt to fix a central problem, and
> > > > > make switchdev expose an API that is easier to consume rather than
> > > > > having drivers implement lateral workarounds.
> > > > >
> > > > > In this case, we must notice that
> > > > >
> > > > > (a) switchdev already has the concept of notifiers emitted from the fast
> > > > > path that are still processed by drivers from blocking context. This
> > > > > is accomplished through the SWITCHDEV_F_DEFER flag which is used by
> > > > > e.g. SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_HOST_MDB.
> > > > >
> > > > > (b) the bridge del_nbp() function already calls switchdev_deferred_process().
> > > > > So if we could hook into that, we could have a chance that the
> > > > > bridge simply waits for our FDB entry offloading procedure to finish
> > > > > before it calls netdev_upper_dev_unlink() - which is almost
> > > > > immediately afterwards, and also when switchdev drivers typically
> > > > > break their stateful associations between the bridge upper and
> > > > > private data.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it is in fact possible to use switchdev's generic
> > > > > switchdev_deferred_enqueue mechanism to get a sleepable callback, and
> > > > > from there we can call_switchdev_blocking_notifiers().
> > > > >
> > > > > To address all requirements:
> > > > >
> > > > > - drivers that are unconverted from atomic to blocking still work
> > > > > - drivers that currently have a private workqueue are not worse off
> > > > > - drivers that want the bridge to wait for their deferred work can use
> > > > > the bridge's defer mechanism
> > > > > - a SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE event which does not have any interested
> > > > > parties does not get deferred for no reason, because this takes the
> > > > > rtnl_mutex and schedules a worker thread for nothing
> > > > >
> > > > > it looks like we can in fact start off by emitting
> > > > > SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE on the atomic chain. But we add a new bit in
> > > > > struct switchdev_notifier_fdb_info called "needs_defer", and any
> > > > > interested party can set this to true.
> > > > >
> > > > > This way:
> > > > >
> > > > > - unconverted drivers do their work (i.e. schedule their private work
> > > > > item) based on the atomic notifier, and do not set "needs_defer"
> > > > > - converted drivers only mark "needs_defer" and treat a separate
> > > > > notifier, on the blocking chain, called SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE_DEFERRED
> > > > > - SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE events with no interested party do not
> > > > > generate any follow-up SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE_DEFERRED
> > > > >
> > > > > Additionally, code paths that are blocking right not, like br_fdb_replay,
> > > > > could notify only SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE_DEFERRED, as long as all
> > > > > consumers of the replayed FDB events support that (right now, that is
> > > > > DSA and dpaa2-switch).
> > > > >
> > > > > Once all consumers of SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE are converted to set
> > > > > needs_defer as appropriate, then the notifiers emitted from process
> > > > > context by the bridge could call SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE_DEFERRED
> > > > > directly, and we would also have fully blocking context all the way
> > > > > down, with the opportunity for error propagation and extack.
> > > >
> > > > IIUC, at this stage all the FDB notifications drivers get are blocking,
> > > > either from the work queue (because they were deferred) or directly from
> > > > process context. If so, how do we synchronize the two and ensure drivers
> > > > get the notifications at the correct order?
> > >
> > > What does 'at this stage' mean? Does it mean 'assuming the patch we're
> > > discussing now gets accepted'? If that's what it means, then 'at this
> > > stage' all drivers would first receive the atomic FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE,
> > > then would set needs_defer, then would receive the blocking
> > > FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE.
> >
> > I meant after:
> >
> > "Once all consumers of SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE are converted to set
> > needs_defer as appropriate, then the notifiers emitted from process
> > context by the bridge could call SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE_DEFERRED
> > directly, and we would also have fully blocking context all the way
> > down, with the opportunity for error propagation and extack."
> >
> > IIUC, after the conversion the 'needs_defer' is gone and all the FDB
> > events are blocking? Either from syscall context or the workqueue.
>
> We would not delete 'needs_defer'. It still offers a useful preliminary
> filtering mechanism for the fast path (and for br_fdb_replay). In
> retrospect, the SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_HOST_MDB would also benefit from 'needs_defer'
> instead of jumping to blocking context (if we care so much about performance).
>
> If a FDB event does not need to be processed by anyone (dynamically
> learned entry on a switchdev port), the bridge notifies the atomic call
> chain for the sake of it, but not the blocking chain.
>
> > If so, I'm not sure how we synchronize the two. That is, making sure
> > that an event from syscall context does not reach drivers before an
> > earlier event that was added to the 'deferred' list.
> >
> > I mean, in syscall context we are holding RTNL so whatever is already on
> > the 'deferred' list cannot be dequeued and processed.
>
> So switchdev_deferred_process() has ASSERT_RTNL. If we call
> switchdev_deferred_process() right before adding the blocking FDB entry
> in process context (and we already hold rtnl_mutex), I though that would
> be enough to ensure we have a synchronization point: Everything that was
> scheduled before is flushed now, everything that is scheduled while we
> are running will run after we unlock the rtnl_mutex. Is that not the
> order we expect? I mean, if there is a fast path FDB entry being learned
> / deleted while user space say adds that same FDB entry as static, how
> is the relative ordering ensured between the two?
I was thinking about the following case:
t0 - <MAC1,VID1,P1> is added in syscall context under 'hash_lock'
t1 - br_fdb_delete_by_port() flushes entries under 'hash_lock' in
response to STP state. Notifications are added to 'deferred' list
t2 - switchdev_deferred_process() is called in syscall context
t3 - <MAC1,VID1,P1> is notified as blocking
Updates to the SW FDB are protected by 'hash_lock', but updates to the
HW FDB are not. In this case, <MAC1,VID1,P1> does not exist in SW, but
it will exist in HW.
Another case assuming switchdev_deferred_process() is called first:
t0 - switchdev_deferred_process() is called in syscall context
t1 - <MAC1,VID,P1> is learned under 'hash_lock'. Notification is added
to 'deferred' list
t2 - <MAC1,VID1,P1> is modified in syscall context under 'hash_lock' to
<MAC1,VID1,P2>
t3 - <MAC1,VID1,P2> is notified as blocking
t4 - <MAC1,VID1,P1> is notified as blocking (next time the 'deferred'
list is processed)
In this case, the HW will have <MAC1,VID1,P1>, but SW will have
<MAC1,VID1,P2>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-23 12:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-19 16:07 [PATCH v2 net-next 0/5] Make SWITCHDEV_FDB_{ADD,DEL}_TO_DEVICE blocking Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-19 16:07 ` [PATCH v2 net-next 1/5] net: switchdev: move SWITCHDEV_FDB_{ADD,DEL}_TO_DEVICE to the blocking notifier chain Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-19 18:15 ` Vlad Buslov
2021-08-19 23:18 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-20 7:36 ` Vlad Buslov
2021-08-19 16:07 ` [PATCH v2 net-next 2/5] net: bridge: switchdev: make br_fdb_replay offer sleepable context to consumers Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-19 16:07 ` [PATCH v2 net-next 3/5] net: switchdev: drop the atomic notifier block from switchdev_bridge_port_{,un}offload Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-19 16:07 ` [PATCH v2 net-next 4/5] net: switchdev: don't assume RCU context in switchdev_handle_fdb_{add,del}_to_device Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-19 16:07 ` [PATCH v2 net-next 5/5] net: dsa: handle SWITCHDEV_FDB_{ADD,DEL}_TO_DEVICE synchronously Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-20 9:16 ` [PATCH v2 net-next 0/5] Make SWITCHDEV_FDB_{ADD,DEL}_TO_DEVICE blocking Ido Schimmel
2021-08-20 9:37 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-20 16:09 ` Ido Schimmel
2021-08-20 17:06 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-20 23:36 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2021-08-21 0:22 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-22 6:48 ` Ido Schimmel
2021-08-22 9:12 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2021-08-22 13:31 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-22 17:06 ` Ido Schimmel
2021-08-22 17:44 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-23 10:47 ` Ido Schimmel
2021-08-23 11:00 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-23 12:16 ` Ido Schimmel [this message]
2021-08-23 14:29 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-23 15:18 ` Ido Schimmel
2021-08-23 15:42 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2021-08-23 15:42 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-23 16:02 ` Ido Schimmel
2021-08-23 16:11 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-23 16:23 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-20 10:49 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-20 16:11 ` Ido Schimmel
2021-08-21 19:09 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-08-22 7:19 ` Ido Schimmel
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=YSORsKDOwklF19Gm@shredder \
--to=idosch@idosch.org \
--cc=Landen.Chao@mediatek.com \
--cc=Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com \
--cc=UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=claudiu.manoil@nxp.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dqfext@gmail.com \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=george.mccollister@gmail.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=grygorii.strashko@ti.com \
--cc=hauke@hauke-m.de \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=idosch@nvidia.com \
--cc=ioana.ciornei@nxp.com \
--cc=ivecera@redhat.com \
--cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=jianbol@nvidia.com \
--cc=jiri@nvidia.com \
--cc=jwi@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kabel@blackhole.sk \
--cc=kgraul@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kurt@linutronix.de \
--cc=lars.povlsen@microchip.com \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=mbloch@nvidia.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nikolay@nvidia.com \
--cc=olteanv@gmail.com \
--cc=roid@nvidia.com \
--cc=roopa@nvidia.com \
--cc=saeedm@nvidia.com \
--cc=sean.wang@mediatek.com \
--cc=tchornyi@marvell.com \
--cc=tobias@waldekranz.com \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
--cc=vivien.didelot@gmail.com \
--cc=vkochan@marvell.com \
--cc=vladbu@nvidia.com \
--cc=vladimir.oltean@nxp.com \
--cc=woojung.huh@microchip.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).