Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-212889-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:54:12 +0200
From: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@intel.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
CC: <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>, Jesse Brandeburg
	<jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, "Daniel
 Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>, Maciej Fijalkowski
	<maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	<magnus.karlsson@intel.com>, Michal Kubiak <michal.kubiak@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-net 0/3] ice: fix synchronization between .ndo_bpf()
 and reset
Message-ID: <ZmqztPo6UDIC6gKx@lzaremba-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <20240610153716.31493-1-larysa.zaremba@intel.com>
 <20240611193837.4ffb2401@kernel.org>
 <ZmlGppe04yuGHvPx@lzaremba-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20240612140935.54981c49@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240612140935.54981c49@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?Isx9mLC6rLOF28uj7YN25DI1Oty1tVKWEPCh2wLMspfNMdZmeSA78ezM+UqN?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?9b3/2Gzo9xsWAINza4UIl2iSL4QKXgfezmNHns9+cMmDVIbsk3EYuBG7f4QQ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?VjiOF8K6zZjVN6sTmo8ndIMpvn1rjCnV9gETDEyOCe8BR4WAp00Dg8j4lZ0a?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?GmMlYH1sMfRv1Mq77y8xt3lzQUs6QDgrJIdBF7l27vfpF3Rh7wrUS9Hz3u9M?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?rdqiLEOperTgm4s1Gfle589polXxlczAqQFEuEAE5PG5OLkU+zN7aZZG1Nf9?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ezSGBSh6/RaeEIUg46zqQNsFPqOX7HwY7zll4DzuRYw3nzQG6q4/fMi0XeIZ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?3F+ASwT4WNpPdUTBW+c25Kk4z3pWH1PdLmZUynBJE8p5Ng7DyoBH6AeYsK8y?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?WxTHGQuBZouYmFSlPUpzoRjth81q/0EIE4li6az90Siws8OGQGUXzaDATFce?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Wk9axk4wLPAW9yRALQCAGVvSzh6mdD0Y+HDjdLeZFVeXNNCrscC7vafeb9/7?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?nPr0Rwg2N64CMOLuViPQgO/mpycsXkvAqn/XmwQKSNhp7NNRKupv2poWybIe?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?8QYiSTMvQUo2L/xRTZVuOcPAUQLv7TJVzVCIaE8eYocmZQa5WeywHR30vgrK?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?erSzELOinULXJetmPwYQHadC+MBSsk+zIIW1JzVOj/6RPSkhH1lnXMhLJeRk?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?0OHph5JNcO0mOtDOmOHWw8sGOaJdVovWTv8DDMicfjDbSjXEM7Nwk7TEx5EJ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?1rloq5gOGV9wQ28+Rys7Mttgn70FlBEImmHM9T35AkDdJ4KlRabML4lbqSTh?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Qm1Vsgt5C2rcHTcBQFx5t9691nWeIIMUfUh2+tewk5+y/Txg8GPR4/2W0SCS?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?d8vBjPVTUOm/xSCEtLSm/U+H1xE3t97ba1QTWDqDPvkyQRV/GT3oOJpx2P0p?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?jsWx2x/fvMlnF39VxHwValy61/mAqfDMSm5fPnp9pM9cn/2ibuIBzWlUbYOz?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?7h+3VhUvGNQiCgJwl+uITQgGVh9Xj200KNS45VTQi8BiSLj1MB2q28+lPJ7L?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?TgZxnm1m50s22hqT6J7tG8DgRFehOvDwuR9rb5EVTNM8c/fVdqH2CPyRR18w?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?OOHZ8vGj+3Y0gedRBm+jYQ6FMgJAowCPCb6pIzKy16qo6nQLBSyZBgJIz24T?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?SRrWZSa9djzyoIhe3knR9ePqNOSrJoMDqFiRJhyKrhfyZVxLyYCUkrS1oW2D?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?okgMzm86OKszr2tlmKLWcZ20Xm+t3RnQcwTuiZv0ECbcgfi0+kbGHaBYSBMo?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?/ajcSZUfoZGoaYe5U+4zt20agWwh2aQBikTX0hZszRhoSfqzk45Uqr8j0EQl?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?KY4UekWUtC284vOTf/AEQljnyf0QJDzVzr88iWMrym2ZphobsJjiMzRtbloH?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?M+43mtDol5OVZFmOXtHEEGe/sUTkUc45DCkIC1ludqHC/g4sr2aqwNClyGWR?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?vrf8vrURGMu6+h7xyEWS4kRbiRh00KLfVvJNxyW+PODa4ikhkBptyA+uGZV2?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?sPxztskhs5sKZA3yVJi2cuVvc1rRkLlXJ0p05v6sAiU0aSdfBUCLzMzaqBMm?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?0A=3D=3D?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 62ed419b-3f71-45b5-caee-08dc8b866bcb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SN7PR11MB7540.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2024 08:54:23.1322
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: sB3HYzWK70UI1UD0A70HhsAE8vgFreUozjzn/e0/aa4lIgMCsLFhrA+QvX5NwBt6U3Dmdyw0JJI1y/E5UoLhImBqLS44LArmmSJoLD12nWw=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM3PR11MB8713
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 02:09:35PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:56:38 +0200 Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 07:38:37PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:37:12 +0200 Larysa Zaremba wrote:  
> > > > Fix the problems that are triggered by tx_timeout and ice_xdp() calls,
> > > > including both pool and program operations.  
> > > 
> > > Is there really no way for ice to fix the locking? :(
> > > The busy loops and trylocks() are not great, and seem like duct tape.
> > 
> > The locking mechanisms I use here do not look pretty, but if I am not missing 
> > anything, the synchronization they provide must be robust.
> 
> Robust as in they may be correct here, but you lose lockdep and all
> other infra normal mutex would give you.
> 

I know, but __netif_queue_set_napi() requires rtnl_lock() inside the potential 
critical section and creates a deadlock this way. However, after reading 
patches that introduce this function, I think it is called too early in the
configuration. Seems like it should be called somewhere right after 
netif_set_real_num_rx/_tx_queues(), much later in the configuration where we 
already hold the rtnl_lock(). In such way, ice_vsi_rebuild() could be protected 
with an internal mutex. WDYT?

> > A prettier way of protecting the same critical sections would be replacing 
> > ICE_CFG_BUSY around ice_vsi_rebuild() with rtnl_lock(), this would eliminate 
> > locking code from .ndo_bpf() altogether, ice_rebuild_pending() logic will have 
> > to stay.
> > 
> > At some point I have decided to avoid using rtnl_lock(), if I do not have to. I 
> > think this is a goal worth pursuing?
> 
> Is the reset for failure recovery, rather than reconfiguration? 
> If so netif_device_detach() is generally the best way of avoiding
> getting called (I think I mentioned it to someone @intal recently).

AFAIK, netif_device_detach() does not affect .ndo_bpf() calls. We were trying 
such approach with idpf and it does work for ethtool, but not for XDP.