From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: syzbot+850aaf14624dc0c6d366@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
kkd@meta.com, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf v1] bpf: Convert ringbuf.c to rqspinlock
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 03:17:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250411101759.4061366-1-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
Convert the raw spinlock used by BPF ringbuf to rqspinlock. Currently,
we have an open syzbot report of a potential deadlock. In addition, the
ringbuf can fail to reserve spuriously under contention from NMI
context.
It is potentially attractive to enable unconstrained usage (incl. NMIs)
while ensuring no deadlocks manifest at runtime, perform the conversion
to rqspinlock to achieve this.
This change was benchmarked for BPF ringbuf's multi-producer contention
case on an Intel Sapphire Rapids server, with hyperthreading disabled
and performance governor turned on. 5 warm up runs were done for each
case before obtaining the results.
Before (raw_spinlock_t):
Ringbuf, multi-producer contention
==================================
rb-libbpf nr_prod 1 11.440 ± 0.019M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 2 2.706 ± 0.010M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 3 3.130 ± 0.004M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 4 2.472 ± 0.003M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 8 2.352 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 12 2.813 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 16 1.988 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 20 2.245 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 24 2.148 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 28 2.190 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 32 2.490 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 36 2.180 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 40 2.201 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 44 2.226 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 48 2.164 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 52 1.874 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
After (rqspinlock_t):
Ringbuf, multi-producer contention
==================================
rb-libbpf nr_prod 1 11.078 ± 0.019M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (-3.16%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 2 2.801 ± 0.014M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (3.51%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 3 3.454 ± 0.005M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (10.35%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 4 2.567 ± 0.002M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (3.84%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 8 2.468 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (4.93%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 12 2.510 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (-10.77%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 16 2.075 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (4.38%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 20 2.640 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (17.59%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 24 2.092 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (-2.61%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 28 2.426 ± 0.005M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (10.78%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 32 2.331 ± 0.004M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (-6.39%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 36 2.306 ± 0.003M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (5.78%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 40 2.178 ± 0.002M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (-1.04%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 44 2.293 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (3.01%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 48 2.022 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (-6.56%)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 52 1.809 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s) (-3.47%)
There's a fair amount of noise in the benchmark, with numbers on reruns
going up and down by 10%, so all changes are in the range of this
disturbance, and we see no major regressions.
Reported-by: syzbot+850aaf14624dc0c6d366@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/0000000000004aa700061379547e@google.com
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
kernel/bpf/ringbuf.c | 17 +++++++----------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/ringbuf.c b/kernel/bpf/ringbuf.c
index 1499d8caa9a3..719d73299397 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/ringbuf.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/ringbuf.c
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
#include <linux/kmemleak.h>
#include <uapi/linux/btf.h>
#include <linux/btf_ids.h>
+#include <asm/rqspinlock.h>
#define RINGBUF_CREATE_FLAG_MASK (BPF_F_NUMA_NODE)
@@ -29,7 +30,7 @@ struct bpf_ringbuf {
u64 mask;
struct page **pages;
int nr_pages;
- raw_spinlock_t spinlock ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
+ rqspinlock_t spinlock ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
/* For user-space producer ring buffers, an atomic_t busy bit is used
* to synchronize access to the ring buffers in the kernel, rather than
* the spinlock that is used for kernel-producer ring buffers. This is
@@ -173,7 +174,7 @@ static struct bpf_ringbuf *bpf_ringbuf_alloc(size_t data_sz, int numa_node)
if (!rb)
return NULL;
- raw_spin_lock_init(&rb->spinlock);
+ raw_res_spin_lock_init(&rb->spinlock);
atomic_set(&rb->busy, 0);
init_waitqueue_head(&rb->waitq);
init_irq_work(&rb->work, bpf_ringbuf_notify);
@@ -416,12 +417,8 @@ static void *__bpf_ringbuf_reserve(struct bpf_ringbuf *rb, u64 size)
cons_pos = smp_load_acquire(&rb->consumer_pos);
- if (in_nmi()) {
- if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&rb->spinlock, flags))
- return NULL;
- } else {
- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rb->spinlock, flags);
- }
+ if (raw_res_spin_lock_irqsave(&rb->spinlock, flags))
+ return NULL;
pend_pos = rb->pending_pos;
prod_pos = rb->producer_pos;
@@ -446,7 +443,7 @@ static void *__bpf_ringbuf_reserve(struct bpf_ringbuf *rb, u64 size)
*/
if (new_prod_pos - cons_pos > rb->mask ||
new_prod_pos - pend_pos > rb->mask) {
- raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rb->spinlock, flags);
+ raw_res_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rb->spinlock, flags);
return NULL;
}
@@ -458,7 +455,7 @@ static void *__bpf_ringbuf_reserve(struct bpf_ringbuf *rb, u64 size)
/* pairs with consumer's smp_load_acquire() */
smp_store_release(&rb->producer_pos, new_prod_pos);
- raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rb->spinlock, flags);
+ raw_res_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rb->spinlock, flags);
return (void *)hdr + BPF_RINGBUF_HDR_SZ;
}
--
2.47.1
next reply other threads:[~2025-04-11 10:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-11 10:17 Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2025-04-11 17:04 ` [PATCH bpf v1] bpf: Convert ringbuf.c to rqspinlock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-04-11 17:19 ` [syzbot] [bpf?] possible deadlock in __bpf_ringbuf_reserve syzbot
2025-04-11 17:31 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-04-11 18:26 ` syzbot
2025-04-11 17:37 ` [PATCH bpf v1] bpf: Convert ringbuf.c to rqspinlock patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250411101759.4061366-1-memxor@gmail.com \
--to=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kkd@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=syzbot+850aaf14624dc0c6d366@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox