Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-99640-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZeFPz4D121TgvCje@debian.debian> <CAO3-PboqKqjqrAScqzu6aB8d+fOq97_Wuz8b7d5uoMKT-+-WvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANn89iLCv0f3vBYt8W+_ZDuNeOY1jDLDBfMbOj7Hzi8s0xQCZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO3-PboZwTiSmVxVFFfAm94o+LgK=rnm1vbJvMhzSGep+RYzaQ@mail.gmail.com> <ed57b5fa-8b44-48de-904e-fe8da1939292@paulmck-laptop>
In-Reply-To: <ed57b5fa-8b44-48de-904e-fe8da1939292@paulmck-laptop>
From: Yan Zhai <yan@cloudflare.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:58:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAO3-Pbp0Pxbbgmjf03wKo6MDrQYE7uiL+mUnheT9UA9Pjj5bUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll
To: paulmck@kernel.org
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, 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, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, 
	=?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= <toke@redhat.com>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, mark.rutland@arm.com, 
	Jesper Brouer <jesper@cloudflare.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 4:29=E2=80=AFPM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 11:30:29AM -0600, Yan Zhai wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 2:30=E2=80=AFAM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.co=
m> wrote:
> > >
> > > I could not see the reason for 1sec (HZ) delays.
> > >
> > > Would calling rcu_softirq_qs() every ~10ms instead be a serious issue=
 ?
> > >
> > The trouble scenarios are often when we need to detach an ad-hoc BPF
> > tracing program, or restart a monitoring service. It is fine as long
> > as they do not block for 10+ seconds or even completely stall under
> > heavy traffic. Raising a QS every few ms or HZ both work in such
> > cases.
> >
> > > In anycase, if this all about rcu_tasks, I would prefer using a macro
> > > defined in kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > instead of having a hidden constant in a networking core function.
> >
> > Paul E. McKenney was suggesting either current form or
> >
> >          local_bh_enable();
> >          if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> >                  rcu_softirq_qs_enable(local_bh_enable());
> >          else
> >                  local_bh_enable();
> >
> > With an interval it might have to be
> > "rcu_softirq_qs_enable(local_bh_enable(), &next_qs);" to avoid an
> > unnecessary extern/static var. Will it make more sense to you?
>
> I was thinking in terms of something like this (untested):
>
>         #define rcu_softirq_qs_enable(enable_stmt, oldj) \
>         do { \
>                 if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) && \
>                     time_after(oldj + HZ / 10, jiffies) { \
>                         rcu_softirq_qs(); \
>                         (oldj) =3D jiffies; \
>                 } \
>                 do  { enable_stmt; } while (0) \
>         } while (0)
>
> Then the call could be "rcu_softirq_qs_enable(local_bh_enable(), last_qs)=
",
> where last_qs is initialized by the caller to jiffies.
>
> The reason for putting "enable_stmt;" into anothor do-while loop is
> in case someone typos an "else" as the first part of the "enable_stmt"
> argument.
>
> Would that work?
>
Thanks Paul, just got time to continue this thread as I was
travelling. I think it is probably better to move
preempt_disable/enable into the macro to avoid the friction. And also
since this can affect NAPI thread, NAPI busy loop and XDP cpu map
thread (+Jesper who reminded me about this), let me send a v3 later to
cover all of those places.

Yan


>                                                         Thanx, Paul