Re: [PATCH net-next v7 2/8] page_pool: fix timing for checking and disabling napi_local

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>]

Yunsheng Lin <yunshenglin0825@gmail.com> writes:

> On 1/25/2025 1:13 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> writes:
>> 
>>>> So I really don't see a way for this race to happen with correct usage
>>>> of the page_pool and NAPI APIs, which means there's no reason to make
>>>> the change you are proposing here.
>>>
>>> I looked at one driver setting pp->napi, it seems the bnxt driver doesn't
>>> seems to call page_pool_disable_direct_recycling() when unloading, see
>>> bnxt_half_close_nic(), page_pool_disable_direct_recycling() seems to be
>>> only called for the new queue_mgmt API:
>>>
>>> /* rtnl_lock held, this call can only be made after a previous successful
>>>   * call to bnxt_half_open_nic().
>>>   */
>>> void bnxt_half_close_nic(struct bnxt *bp)
>>> {
>>> 	bnxt_hwrm_resource_free(bp, false, true);
>>> 	bnxt_del_napi(bp);       *----call napi del and rcu sync----*
>>> 	bnxt_free_skbs(bp);
>>> 	bnxt_free_mem(bp, true); *------call page_pool_destroy()----*
>>> 	clear_bit(BNXT_STATE_HALF_OPEN, &bp->state);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Even if there is a page_pool_disable_direct_recycling() called between
>>> bnxt_del_napi() and bnxt_free_mem(), the timing window still exist as
>>> rcu sync need to be called after page_pool_disable_direct_recycling(),
>>> it seems some refactor is needed for bnxt driver to reuse the rcu sync
>>> from the NAPI API, in order to avoid calling the rcu sync for
>>> page_pool_destroy().
>> 
>> Well, I would consider that usage buggy. A page pool object is created
>> with a reference to the napi struct; so the page pool should also be
>> destroyed (clearing its reference) before the napi memory is freed. I
>> guess this is not really documented anywhere, but it's pretty standard
>> practice to free objects in the opposite order of their creation.
>
> I am not so familiar with rule about the creation API of NAPI, but the
> implementation of bnxt driver can have reference of 'struct napi' before
> calling netif_napi_add(), see below:
>
> static int __bnxt_open_nic(struct bnxt *bp, bool irq_re_init, bool 
> link_re_init)
> {
> 	.......
> 	rc = bnxt_alloc_mem(bp, irq_re_init);     *create page_pool*
> 	if (rc) {
> 		netdev_err(bp->dev, "bnxt_alloc_mem err: %x\n", rc);
> 		goto open_err_free_mem;
> 	}
>
> 	if (irq_re_init) {
> 		bnxt_init_napi(bp);                *netif_napi_add*
> 		rc = bnxt_request_irq(bp);
> 		if (rc) {
> 			netdev_err(bp->dev, "bnxt_request_irq err: %x\n", rc);
> 			goto open_err_irq;
> 		}
> 	}
>
> 	.....
> }

Regardless of the initialisation error, the fact that bnxt frees the
NAPI memory before calling page_pool_destroy() is a driver bug. Mina has
a suggestion for a warning to catch such bugs over in this thread:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHS8izOv=tUiuzha6NFq1-ZurLGz9Jdi78jb3ey4ExVJirMprA@mail.gmail.com

>> So no, I don't think this is something that should be fixed on the page
>> pool side (and certainly not by adding another synchronize_rcu() call
>> per queue!); rather, we should fix the drivers that get this wrong (and
>> probably document the requirement a bit better).
>
> Even if timing problem of checking and disabling napi_local should not
> be fixed on the page_pool side, do we have some common understanding
> about fixing the DMA API misuse problem on the page_pool side?
> If yes, do we have some common understanding about some mechanism
> like synchronize_rcu() might be still needed on the page_pool side?

I have not reviewed the rest of your patch set, I only looked at this
patch. I see you posted v8 without addressing Jesper's ask for a
conceptual description of your design. I am not going to review a
600-something line patch series without such a description to go by, so
please address that first.

> If yes, it may be better to focus on discussing how to avoid calling rcu
> sync for each queue mentioned in [1].

Regardless of whether a synchronize_rcu() is needed in the final design
(and again, note that I don't have an opinion on this before reviewing
the whole series), this patch should be dropped from the series. The bug
it is purporting to fix is a driver API misuse and should be fixed in
the drivers, cf the above.

-Toke