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;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <YzOjEqBMtF+Ib72v@chmeee>
References: <YzOjEqBMtF+Ib72v@chmeee>
Subject: Re: new warning caused by ("net-sysfs: update the queue counts in the unregistration path")
From:   Antoine Tenart <atenart@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To:     Kevin Mitchell <kevmitch@arista.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 11:46:20 +0200
Message-ID: <166435838013.3919.14607521178984182789@kwain>
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Kevin Mitchell (2022-09-28 03:27:46)
> With the inclusion of d7dac083414e ("net-sysfs: update the queue counts i=
n the
> unregistration path"), we have started see the following message during o=
ne of
> our stress tests that brings an interface up and down while continuously
> trying to send out packets on it:
>=20
> et3_11_1 selects TX queue 0, but real number of TX queues is 0
>=20
> It seems that this is a result of a race between remove_queue_kobjects() =
and
> netdev_cap_txqueue() for the last packets before setting dev->flags &=3D =
~IFF_UP
> in __dev_close_many(). When this message is displayed, netdev_cap_txqueue=
()
> selects queue 0 anyway (the noop queue at this point). As it did before t=
he
> above commit, that queue (which I guess is still around due to reference
> counting) proceeds to drop the packet and return NET_XMIT_CN. So there do=
esn't
> appear to be a functional change. However, the warning message seems to be
> spurious if not slightly confusing.

Do you know the call traces leading to this? Also I'm not 100% sure to
follow as remove_queue_kobjects is called in the unregistration path
while the test is setting the iface up & down. What driver is used?

As you said and looking around queue 0 is somewhat special and used as a
fallback. My suggestion would be to 1) check if the above race is
expected 2) if yes, a possible solution would be not to warn when
real_num_tx_queues =3D=3D 0 as in such cases selecting queue 0 would be the
expected fallback (and you might want to check places like [1]).

Thanks,
Antoine

[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/net/core/dev.c#L4126