Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-85199-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:43:43 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@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: <20240228064343.578a5363@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <66a81295-ab6f-41f4-a3da-8b5003634c6a@paulmck-laptop>
References: <Zd4DXTyCf17lcTfq@debian.debian>
	<CANn89iJQX14C1Qb_qbTVG4yoG26Cq7Ct+2qK_8T-Ok2JDdTGEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<d633c5b9-53a5-4cd6-9dbb-6623bb74c00b@paulmck-laptop>
	<20240227191001.0c521b03@kernel.org>
	<66a81295-ab6f-41f4-a3da-8b5003634c6a@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:42:24 -0800 Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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:  
> > > 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().

I was thinking of using rcu_all_qs(), like cond_resched() does.
Not sure how it compares in terms of functionality and cost.

> 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?

Very much so, which is why adding the cost of rcu_softirq_qs()
for every NAPI run feels like an overkill.