Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@gmail.com>
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>,
        Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@gmail.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
        kuba@kernel.org
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 net-next 1/4] net: bridge: add fdb flag to extent
 locked port feature
In-Reply-To: <b78fb006-04c4-5a25-7ba5-94428cc9591a@blackwall.org>
References: <20220524152144.40527-1-schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com>
 <20220524152144.40527-2-schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com>
 <01e6e35c-f5c9-9776-1263-058f84014ed9@blackwall.org>
 <86zgj6oqa9.fsf@gmail.com>
 <b78fb006-04c4-5a25-7ba5-94428cc9591a@blackwall.org>
Date:   Wed, 25 May 2022 10:34:27 +0200
Message-ID: <86fskyggdo.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On ons, maj 25, 2022 at 11:06, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org> wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 19:21, Hans Schultz wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Hans,
>>> So this approach has a fundamental problem, f->dst is changed without any synchronization
>>> you cannot rely on it and thus you cannot account for these entries properly. We must be very
>>> careful if we try to add any new synchronization not to affect performance as well.
>>> More below...
>>>
>>>> @@ -319,6 +326,9 @@ static void fdb_delete(struct net_bridge *br, struct net_bridge_fdb_entry *f,
>>>>  	if (test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &f->flags))
>>>>  		fdb_del_hw_addr(br, f->key.addr.addr);
>>>>  
>>>> +	if (test_bit(BR_FDB_ENTRY_LOCKED, &f->flags) && !test_bit(BR_FDB_OFFLOADED, &f->flags))
>>>> +		atomic_dec(&f->dst->locked_entry_cnt);
>>>
>>> Sorry but you cannot do this for multiple reasons:
>>>  - f->dst can be NULL
>>>  - f->dst changes without any synchronization
>>>  - there is no synchronization between fdb's flags and its ->dst
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>  Nik
>> 
>> Hi Nik,
>> 
>> if a port is decoupled from the bridge, the locked entries would of
>> course be invalid, so maybe if adding and removing a port is accounted
>> for wrt locked entries and the count of locked entries, would that not
>> work?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Hans
>
> Hi Hans,
> Unfortunately you need the correct amount of locked entries per-port if you want
> to limit their number per-port, instead of globally. So you need a
> consistent

Hi Nik,
the used dst is a port structure, so it is per-port and not globally.

Best,
Hans

> fdb view with all its attributes when changing its dst in this case, which would
> require new locking because you have multiple dependent struct fields and it will
> kill roaming/learning scalability. I don't think this use case is worth the complexity it
> will bring, so I'd suggest an alternative - you can monitor the number of locked entries
> per-port from a user-space agent and disable port learning or some similar solution that
> doesn't require any complex kernel changes. Is the limit a requirement to add the feature?
>
> I have an idea how to do it and to minimize the performance hit if it really is needed
> but it'll add a lot of complexity which I'd like to avoid if possible.
>
> Cheers,
>  Nik