Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/3] page_pool: fix IOMMU crash when driver has already unbound

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

Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> writes:

>>> I would prefer the waiting too if simple waiting fixed the test cases that
>>> Youglong and Haiqing were reporting and I did not look into the rabbit hole
>>> of possible caching in networking.
>>>
>>> As mentioned in commit log and [1]:
>>> 1. ipv4 packet defragmentation timeout: this seems to cause delay up to 30
>>>    secs, which was reported by Haiqing.
>>> 2. skb_defer_free_flush(): this may cause infinite delay if there is no
>>>    triggering for net_rx_action(), which was reported by Yonglong.
>>>
>>> For case 1, is it really ok to stall the driver unbound up to 30 secs for the
>>> default setting of defragmentation timeout?
>>>
>>> For case 2, it is possible to add timeout for those kind of caching like the
>>> defragmentation timeout too, but as mentioned in [2], it seems to be a normal
>>> thing for this kind of caching in networking:
>> 
>> Both 1 and 2 seem to be cases where the netdev teardown code can just
>> make sure to kick the respective queues and make sure there's nothing
>> outstanding (for (1), walk the defrag cache and clear out anything
>> related to the netdev going away, for (2) make sure to kick
>> net_rx_action() as part of the teardown).
>
> It would be good to be more specific about the 'kick' here, does it mean
> taking the lock and doing one of below action for each cache instance?
> 1. flush all the cache of each cache instance.
> 2. scan for the page_pool owned page and do the finegrained flushing.

Depends on the context. The page pool is attached to a device, so it
should be possible to walk the skb frags queue and just remove any skbs
that refer to that netdevice, or something like that.

As for the lack of net_rx_action(), this is related to the deferred
freeing of skbs, so it seems like just calling skb_defer_free_flush() on
teardown could be an option.

>>> "Eric pointed out/predicted there's no guarantee that applications will
>>> read / close their sockets so a page pool page may be stuck in a socket
>>> (but not leaked) forever."
>> 
>> As for this one, I would put that in the "well, let's see if this
>> becomes a problem in practice" bucket.
>
> As the commit log in [2], it seems it is already happening.
>
> Those cache are mostly per-cpu and per-socket, and there may be hundreds of
> CPUs and thousands of sockets in one system, are you really sure we need
> to take the lock of each cache instance, which may be thousands of them,
> and do the flushing/scaning of memory used in networking, which may be as
> large as '24 GiB' mentioned by Jesper?

Well, as above, the two issues you mentioned are per-netns (or possibly
per-CPU), so those seem to be manageable to do on device teardown if the
wait is really a problem.

But, well, I'm not sure it is? You seem to be taking it as axiomatic
that the wait in itself is bad. Why? It's just a bit memory being held
on to while it is still in use, and so what?

-Toke