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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <41eda0ea-0ed4-1ffb-5520-06fda08e5d38@huawei.com>
 <CAMDZJNVSv3Msxw=5PRiXyO8bxNsA-4KyxU8BMCVyHxH-3iuq2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <fdb3b69c-a29c-2d5b-a122-9d98ea387fda@huawei.com> <CAMDZJNWTry2eF_n41a13tKFFSSLFyp3BVKakOOWhSDApdp0f=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+khW7jgsyFgBqU7hCzZiSSANE7f=A+M-0XbcKApz6Nr-ZnZDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <07a7491e-f391-a9b2-047e-cab5f23decc5@huawei.com> <CAMDZJNUTaiXMe460P7a7NfK1_bbaahpvi3Q9X85o=G7v9x-w=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <59fc54b7-c276-2918-6741-804634337881@huaweicloud.com> <541aa740-dcf3-35f5-9f9b-e411978eaa06@redhat.com>
 <Y4ZABpDSs4/uRutC@Boquns-Mac-mini.local> <Y4ZCKaQFqDY3aLTy@Boquns-Mac-mini.local>
 <CA+khW7hkQRFcC1QgGxEK_NeaVvCe3Hbe_mZ-_UkQKaBaqnOLEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <23b5de45-1a11-b5c9-d0d3-4dbca0b7661e@huaweicloud.com> <CAMDZJNWtyanKtXtAxYGwvJ0LTgYLf=5iYFm63pbvvJLPE8oHSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8d424223-1da6-60bf-dd2c-cd2fe6d263fe@huaweicloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <8d424223-1da6-60bf-dd2c-cd2fe6d263fe@huaweicloud.com>
From:   Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:55:32 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMDZJNWv0Qv6LJ=APOj644vKfJttcQ4WHXFizxn_2hCeVzQcXA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next] bpf: avoid hashtab deadlock with try_lock
To:     Hou Tao <houtao@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        "houtao1@huawei.com" <houtao1@huawei.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:13 PM Hou Tao <houtao@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 11/30/2022 10:47 AM, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 9:50 AM Hou Tao <houtao@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Hao,
> >>
> >> On 11/30/2022 3:36 AM, Hao Luo wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 9:32 AM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Just to be clear, I meant to refactor htab_lock_bucket() into a try
> >>>> lock pattern. Also after a second thought, the below suggestion doesn't
> >>>> work. I think the proper way is to make htab_lock_bucket() as a
> >>>> raw_spin_trylock_irqsave().
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Boqun
> >>>>
> >>> The potential deadlock happens when the lock is contended from the
> >>> same cpu. When the lock is contended from a remote cpu, we would like
> >>> the remote cpu to spin and wait, instead of giving up immediately. As
> >>> this gives better throughput. So replacing the current
> >>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave() with trylock sacrifices this performance gain.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect the source of the problem is the 'hash' that we used in
> >>> htab_lock_bucket(). The 'hash' is derived from the 'key', I wonder
> >>> whether we should use a hash derived from 'bucket' rather than from
> >>> 'key'. For example, from the memory address of the 'bucket'. Because,
> >>> different keys may fall into the same bucket, but yield different
> >>> hashes. If the same bucket can never have two different 'hashes' here,
> >>> the map_locked check should behave as intended. Also because
> >>> ->map_locked is per-cpu, execution flows from two different cpus can
> >>> both pass.
> >> The warning from lockdep is due to the reason the bucket lock A is used in a
> >> no-NMI context firstly, then the same bucke lock is used a NMI context, so
> > Yes, I tested lockdep too, we can't use the lock in NMI(but only
> > try_lock work fine) context if we use them no-NMI context. otherwise
> > the lockdep prints the warning.
> > * for the dead-lock case: we can use the
> > 1. hash & min(HASHTAB_MAP_LOCK_MASK, htab->n_buckets -1)
> > 2. or hash bucket address.
> Use the computed hash will be better than hash bucket address, because the hash
> buckets are allocated sequentially.
> >
> > * for lockdep warning, we should use in_nmi check with map_locked.
> >
> > BTW, the patch doesn't work, so we can remove the lock_key
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c50eb518e262fa06bd334e6eec172eaf5d7a5bd9
> >
> > static inline int htab_lock_bucket(const struct bpf_htab *htab,
> >                                    struct bucket *b, u32 hash,
> >                                    unsigned long *pflags)
> > {
> >         unsigned long flags;
> >
> >         hash = hash & min(HASHTAB_MAP_LOCK_MASK, htab->n_buckets -1);
> >
> >         preempt_disable();
> >         if (unlikely(__this_cpu_inc_return(*(htab->map_locked[hash])) != 1)) {
> >                 __this_cpu_dec(*(htab->map_locked[hash]));
> >                 preempt_enable();
> >                 return -EBUSY;
> >         }
> >
> >         if (in_nmi()) {
> >                 if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&b->raw_lock, flags))
> >                         return -EBUSY;
> The only purpose of trylock here is to make lockdep happy and it may lead to
> unnecessary -EBUSY error for htab operations in NMI context. I still prefer add
> a virtual lock-class for map_locked to fix the lockdep warning. So could you use
Hi, what is virtual lock-class ? Can you give me an example of what you mean?
> separated patches to fix the potential dead-lock and the lockdep warning ? It
> will be better you can also add a bpf selftests for deadlock problem as said before.
>
> Thanks,
> Tao
> >         } else {
> >                 raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&b->raw_lock, flags);
> >         }
> >
> >         *pflags = flags;
> >         return 0;
> > }
> >
> >
> >> lockdep deduces that may be a dead-lock. I have already tried to use the same
> >> map_locked for keys with the same bucket, the dead-lock is gone, but still got
> >> lockdep warning.
> >>> Hao
> >>> .
> >
>


-- 
Best regards, Tonghao