Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-214550-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 10:27:58 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@kernel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 08/15] net: softnet_data: Make xmit.recursion
 per task.
Message-ID: <20240614082758.6pSMV3aq@linutronix.de>
References: <20240612170303.3896084-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20240612170303.3896084-9-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20240612131829.2e33ca71@rorschach.local.home>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240612131829.2e33ca71@rorschach.local.home>

On 2024-06-12 13:18:29 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:44:34 +0200
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > Softirq is preemptible on PREEMPT_RT. Without a per-CPU lock in
> > local_bh_disable() there is no guarantee that only one device is
> > transmitting at a time.
> > With preemption and multiple senders it is possible that the per-CPU
> > recursion counter gets incremented by different threads and exceeds
> > XMIT_RECURSION_LIMIT leading to a false positive recursion alert.
> > 
> > Instead of adding a lock to protect the per-CPU variable it is simpler
> > to make the counter per-task. Sending and receiving skbs happens always
> > in thread context anyway.
> > 
> > Having a lock to protected the per-CPU counter would block/ serialize two
> > sending threads needlessly. It would also require a recursive lock to
> > ensure that the owner can increment the counter further.
> > 
> > Make the recursion counter a task_struct member on PREEMPT_RT.
> 
> I'm curious to what would be the harm to using a per_task counter
> instead of per_cpu outside of PREEMPT_RT. That way, we wouldn't have to
> have the #ifdef.

There should be a hole on !RT, too so we shouldn't gain weight. The
limit is set to 8 so an u8 would be enough. The counter is only accessed
with BH-disabled so it will be used only in one context since it can't
schedule().

I think it should work fine. netdev folks, you want me to remove that
ifdef and use a per-Task counter unconditionally?

> -- Steve

Sebastian