All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stefan Roesch <shr@devkernel.io>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: io-uring@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
	ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	olivier@trillion01.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 1/7] net: split off __napi_busy_poll from napi_busy_poll
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2023 21:12:10 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <qvqwedmuv6mu.fsf@devbig1114.prn1.facebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230531211537.2a8fda0f@kernel.org>


Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> writes:

> On Wed, 31 May 2023 12:16:50 -0700 Stefan Roesch wrote:
>> > This will conflict with:
>> >
>> >     https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/c857946a4e26
>> >
>> > :( Not sure what to do about it..
>> >
>> > Maybe we can merge a simpler version to unblock io-uring (just add
>> > need_resched() to your loop_end callback and you'll get the same
>> > behavior). Refactor in net-next in parallel. Then once trees converge
>> > do simple a cleanup and call the _rcu version?
>>
>> Jakub, I can certainly call need_resched() in the loop_end callback, but
>> isn't there a potential race? need_resched() in the loop_end callback
>> might not return true, but the need_resched() call in napi_busy_poll
>> does?
>
> need_resched() is best effort. It gets added to potentially long
> execution paths and loops. Extra single round thru the loop won't
> make a difference.

I might be missing something, however what can happen at a high-level is:

io_napi_blocking_busy_loop()
  rcu_read_lock()
  __io_napi_busy_do_busy_loop()
  rcu_read_unlock()

in __io_napi_do_busy_loop() we do

__io_napi_do_busy_loop()
  list_foreach_entry_rcu()
    napi_busy_loop()


and in napi_busy_loop()

napi_busy_loop()
  rcu_read_lock()
  __napi_busy_poll()
  loop_end()
  if (need_resched) {
    rcu_read_unlock()
    schedule()
  }


The problem with checking need_resched in loop_end is that need_resched
can be false in loop_end, however the check for need_resched in
napi_busy_loop succeeds. This means that we unlock the rcu read lock and
call schedule. However the code in io_napi_blocking_busy_loop still
believes we hold the read lock.

  reply	other threads:[~2023-06-02  4:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-18 21:17 [PATCH v13 0/7] io_uring: add napi busy polling support Stefan Roesch
2023-05-18 21:17 ` [PATCH v13 1/7] net: split off __napi_busy_poll from napi_busy_poll Stefan Roesch
2023-05-31 17:26   ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-06-05 17:47     ` Stefan Roesch
2023-06-05 18:00       ` Jakub Kicinski
     [not found]   ` <20230531103224.17a462cc@kernel.org>
2023-05-31 19:16     ` Stefan Roesch
2023-06-01  4:15       ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-06-02  4:12         ` Stefan Roesch [this message]
2023-06-02  4:26           ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-05-18 21:17 ` [PATCH v13 2/7] net: introduce napi_busy_loop_rcu() Stefan Roesch
     [not found]   ` <20230531102915.0afc570b@kernel.org>
2023-05-31 17:38     ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-06-05 17:45     ` Stefan Roesch
2023-05-18 21:17 ` [PATCH v13 3/7] io-uring: move io_wait_queue definition to header file Stefan Roesch
2023-05-18 21:17 ` [PATCH v13 4/7] io-uring: add napi busy poll support Stefan Roesch
2023-05-19  1:26   ` Jens Axboe
2023-05-19 23:11     ` Stefan Roesch
2023-05-19  9:53   ` Simon Horman
2023-05-19 23:17     ` Stefan Roesch
2023-05-18 21:17 ` [PATCH v13 5/7] io-uring: add sqpoll support for napi busy poll Stefan Roesch
2023-05-19  0:11   ` kernel test robot
2023-05-19  1:13     ` Jens Axboe
2023-05-19 23:29       ` Stefan Roesch
2023-05-19  4:35   ` kernel test robot
2023-05-18 21:17 ` [PATCH v13 6/7] io_uring: add register/unregister napi function Stefan Roesch
2023-05-19  1:30   ` Jens Axboe
2023-05-18 21:17 ` [PATCH v13 7/7] io_uring: add prefer busy poll to register and unregister napi api Stefan Roesch
2023-05-19  1:31 ` [PATCH v13 0/7] io_uring: add napi busy polling support Jens Axboe

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=qvqwedmuv6mu.fsf@devbig1114.prn1.facebook.com \
    --to=shr@devkernel.io \
    --cc=ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=olivier@trillion01.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.