Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-84511-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:42:24 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Yan Zhai <yan@cloudflare.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
	Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>,
	Coco Li <lixiaoyan@google.com>, Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@fb.com>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@cloudflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll
Message-ID: <66a81295-ab6f-41f4-a3da-8b5003634c6a@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <Zd4DXTyCf17lcTfq@debian.debian>
 <CANn89iJQX14C1Qb_qbTVG4yoG26Cq7Ct+2qK_8T-Ok2JDdTGEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d633c5b9-53a5-4cd6-9dbb-6623bb74c00b@paulmck-laptop>
 <20240227191001.0c521b03@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240227191001.0c521b03@kernel.org>

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 07:10:01PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:32:22 -0800 Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > +                       if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> > > > +                               rcu_softirq_qs();
> > > > +
> > > >                         local_bh_enable();
> > > >
> > > >                         if (!repoll)
> > >
> > > Hmm....
> > > Why napi_busy_loop() does not have a similar problem ?
> > > 
> > > It is unclear why rcu_all_qs() in __cond_resched() is guarded by
> > > 
> > > #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > >      rcu_all_qs();
> > > #endif  
> > 
> > The theory is that PREEMPT_RCU kernels have preemption, and get their
> > quiescent states that way.
> 
> But that doesn't work well enough?
> 
> Assuming that's the case why don't we add it with the inverse ifdef
> condition next to the cond_resched() which follows a few lines down?
> 
> 			skb_defer_free_flush(sd);
> +
> +			if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> +				rcu_softirq_qs();
> +
> 			local_bh_enable();
> 
> 			if (!repoll)
> 				break;
> 
> 			cond_resched();
> 		}
> 
> We won't repoll majority of the time.

I am not completely clear on what you are proposing, but one complication
is that We need preemption disabled across calls to rcu_softirq_qs()
and we cannot have preemption disabled across calls to cond_resched().
Another complication is that although CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT kernels are
built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU, the reverse is not always the case.
And if we are not repolling, don't we have a high probability of doing
a voluntary context when we reach napi_thread_wait() at the beginning
of that loop?

All in all, I suspect that I am missing your point.

							Thanx, Paul