public inbox for bpf@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
To: Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@meta.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
	song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, andrii@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/8] bpf: Maintain the refcount of struct_ops maps directly.
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 12:10:07 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZAZIn9DrvvYh5/QL@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230303012122.852654-2-kuifeng@meta.com>

On 03/02, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
> The refcount of the kvalue for struct_ops was quite intricate to keep
> track of. By no longer utilizing it and replacing it with the refcount
> from the struct_ops map, this process became more transparent and
> uncomplicated.

> Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@meta.com>
> ---
>   include/linux/bpf.h         |  3 ++
>   kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>   kernel/bpf/syscall.c        | 22 ++++++----
>   3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)

> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> index 8b5d0b4c4ada..cb837f42b99d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ struct bpf_map_ops {
>   	struct bpf_map *(*map_alloc)(union bpf_attr *attr);
>   	void (*map_release)(struct bpf_map *map, struct file *map_file);
>   	void (*map_free)(struct bpf_map *map);
> +	void (*map_free_rcu)(struct bpf_map *map);
>   	int (*map_get_next_key)(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *next_key);
>   	void (*map_release_uref)(struct bpf_map *map);
>   	void *(*map_lookup_elem_sys_only)(struct bpf_map *map, void *key);
> @@ -1869,8 +1870,10 @@ struct bpf_map *bpf_map_get_with_uref(u32 ufd);
>   struct bpf_map *__bpf_map_get(struct fd f);
>   void bpf_map_inc(struct bpf_map *map);
>   void bpf_map_inc_with_uref(struct bpf_map *map);
> +struct bpf_map *__bpf_map_inc_not_zero(struct bpf_map *map, bool uref);
>   struct bpf_map * __must_check bpf_map_inc_not_zero(struct bpf_map *map);
>   void bpf_map_put_with_uref(struct bpf_map *map);
> +void bpf_map_free_deferred(struct work_struct *work);
>   void bpf_map_put(struct bpf_map *map);
>   void *bpf_map_area_alloc(u64 size, int numa_node);
>   void *bpf_map_area_mmapable_alloc(u64 size, int numa_node);
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> index ece9870cab68..bba03b6b010b 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> @@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ struct bpf_struct_ops_map {
>   	struct bpf_struct_ops_value kvalue;
>   };

> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(update_mutex);

Defined but unused?

> +
>   #define VALUE_PREFIX "bpf_struct_ops_"
>   #define VALUE_PREFIX_LEN (sizeof(VALUE_PREFIX) - 1)

> @@ -249,6 +251,7 @@ int bpf_struct_ops_map_sys_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map  
> *map, void *key,
>   	struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map = (struct bpf_struct_ops_map *)map;
>   	struct bpf_struct_ops_value *uvalue, *kvalue;
>   	enum bpf_struct_ops_state state;
> +	s64 refcnt;

>   	if (unlikely(*(u32 *)key != 0))
>   		return -ENOENT;
> @@ -261,13 +264,13 @@ int bpf_struct_ops_map_sys_lookup_elem(struct  
> bpf_map *map, void *key,
>   		return 0;
>   	}

> -	/* No lock is needed.  state and refcnt do not need
> -	 * to be updated together under atomic context.
> -	 */
>   	uvalue = value;
>   	memcpy(uvalue, st_map->uvalue, map->value_size);
>   	uvalue->state = state;
> -	refcount_set(&uvalue->refcnt, refcount_read(&kvalue->refcnt));
> +
> +	refcnt = atomic64_read(&map->refcnt) - atomic64_read(&map->usercnt);
> +	refcount_set(&uvalue->refcnt,
> +		     refcnt > 0 ? refcnt : 0);

>   	return 0;
>   }
> @@ -491,7 +494,6 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_update_elem(struct  
> bpf_map *map, void *key,
>   		*(unsigned long *)(udata + moff) = prog->aux->id;
>   	}

> -	refcount_set(&kvalue->refcnt, 1);
>   	bpf_map_inc(map);

>   	set_memory_rox((long)st_map->image, 1);
> @@ -536,8 +538,7 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_delete_elem(struct  
> bpf_map *map, void *key)
>   	switch (prev_state) {
>   	case BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_INUSE:
>   		st_map->st_ops->unreg(&st_map->kvalue.data);
> -		if (refcount_dec_and_test(&st_map->kvalue.refcnt))
> -			bpf_map_put(map);
> +		bpf_map_put(map);
>   		return 0;
>   	case BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_TOBEFREE:
>   		return -EINPROGRESS;
> @@ -582,6 +583,38 @@ static void bpf_struct_ops_map_free(struct bpf_map  
> *map)
>   	bpf_map_area_free(st_map);
>   }

> +static void bpf_struct_ops_map_free_wq(struct rcu_head *head)
> +{
> +	struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map;
> +
> +	st_map = container_of(head, struct bpf_struct_ops_map, rcu);
> +
> +	/* bpf_map_free_deferred should not be called in a RCU callback. */
> +	INIT_WORK(&st_map->map.work, bpf_map_free_deferred);
> +	queue_work(system_unbound_wq, &st_map->map.work);
> +}
> +
> +static void bpf_struct_ops_map_free_rcu(struct bpf_map *map)
> +{
> +	struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map = (struct bpf_struct_ops_map *)map;
> +
> +	/* Wait for a grace period of RCU. Then, post the map_free
> +	 * work to the system_unbound_wq workqueue to free resources.
> +	 *
> +	 * The struct_ops's function may switch to another struct_ops.
> +	 *
> +	 * For example, bpf_tcp_cc_x->init() may switch to
> +	 * another tcp_cc_y by calling
> +	 * setsockopt(TCP_CONGESTION, "tcp_cc_y").
> +	 * During the switch,  bpf_struct_ops_put(tcp_cc_x) is called
> +	 * and its refcount may reach 0 which then free its
> +	 * trampoline image while tcp_cc_x is still running.

"is still running" where? Why existing deferred work doesn't protect
against this condition?

> +	 *
> +	 * Thus, a rcu grace period is needed here.
> +	 */
> +	call_rcu(&st_map->rcu, bpf_struct_ops_map_free_wq);
> +}
> +
>   static int bpf_struct_ops_map_alloc_check(union bpf_attr *attr)
>   {
>   	if (attr->key_size != sizeof(unsigned int) || attr->max_entries != 1 ||
> @@ -646,6 +679,7 @@ const struct bpf_map_ops bpf_struct_ops_map_ops = {
>   	.map_alloc_check = bpf_struct_ops_map_alloc_check,
>   	.map_alloc = bpf_struct_ops_map_alloc,

[..]

>   	.map_free = bpf_struct_ops_map_free,

Since we have map_free_rcu check in bpf_map_put, does it mean the above
is not needed?

> +	.map_free_rcu = bpf_struct_ops_map_free_rcu,
>   	.map_get_next_key = bpf_struct_ops_map_get_next_key,
>   	.map_lookup_elem = bpf_struct_ops_map_lookup_elem,
>   	.map_delete_elem = bpf_struct_ops_map_delete_elem,
> @@ -660,41 +694,23 @@ const struct bpf_map_ops bpf_struct_ops_map_ops = {
>   bool bpf_struct_ops_get(const void *kdata)
>   {
>   	struct bpf_struct_ops_value *kvalue;
> +	struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map;
> +	struct bpf_map *map;

>   	kvalue = container_of(kdata, struct bpf_struct_ops_value, data);
> +	st_map = container_of(kvalue, struct bpf_struct_ops_map, kvalue);

> -	return refcount_inc_not_zero(&kvalue->refcnt);
> -}
> -
> -static void bpf_struct_ops_put_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
> -{
> -	struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map;
> -
> -	st_map = container_of(head, struct bpf_struct_ops_map, rcu);
> -	bpf_map_put(&st_map->map);
> +	map = __bpf_map_inc_not_zero(&st_map->map, false);
> +	return !IS_ERR(map);
>   }

>   void bpf_struct_ops_put(const void *kdata)
>   {
>   	struct bpf_struct_ops_value *kvalue;
> +	struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map;

>   	kvalue = container_of(kdata, struct bpf_struct_ops_value, data);
> -	if (refcount_dec_and_test(&kvalue->refcnt)) {
> -		struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map;
> -
> -		st_map = container_of(kvalue, struct bpf_struct_ops_map,
> -				      kvalue);
> -		/* The struct_ops's function may switch to another struct_ops.
> -		 *
> -		 * For example, bpf_tcp_cc_x->init() may switch to
> -		 * another tcp_cc_y by calling
> -		 * setsockopt(TCP_CONGESTION, "tcp_cc_y").
> -		 * During the switch,  bpf_struct_ops_put(tcp_cc_x) is called
> -		 * and its map->refcnt may reach 0 which then free its
> -		 * trampoline image while tcp_cc_x is still running.
> -		 *
> -		 * Thus, a rcu grace period is needed here.
> -		 */
> -		call_rcu(&st_map->rcu, bpf_struct_ops_put_rcu);
> -	}
> +	st_map = container_of(kvalue, struct bpf_struct_ops_map, kvalue);
> +
> +	bpf_map_put(&st_map->map);
>   }
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index cda8d00f3762..358a0e40555e 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ void bpf_obj_free_fields(const struct btf_record  
> *rec, void *obj)
>   }

>   /* called from workqueue */
> -static void bpf_map_free_deferred(struct work_struct *work)
> +void bpf_map_free_deferred(struct work_struct *work)
>   {
>   	struct bpf_map *map = container_of(work, struct bpf_map, work);
>   	struct btf_field_offs *foffs = map->field_offs;
> @@ -715,6 +715,15 @@ static void bpf_map_put_uref(struct bpf_map *map)
>   	}
>   }

> +static void bpf_map_put_wq(struct bpf_map *map)
> +{
> +	INIT_WORK(&map->work, bpf_map_free_deferred);
> +	/* Avoid spawning kworkers, since they all might contend
> +	 * for the same mutex like slab_mutex.
> +	 */
> +	queue_work(system_unbound_wq, &map->work);
> +}
> +
>   /* decrement map refcnt and schedule it for freeing via workqueue
>    * (underlying map implementation ops->map_free() might sleep)
>    */
> @@ -724,11 +733,10 @@ void bpf_map_put(struct bpf_map *map)
>   		/* bpf_map_free_id() must be called first */
>   		bpf_map_free_id(map);
>   		btf_put(map->btf);
> -		INIT_WORK(&map->work, bpf_map_free_deferred);
> -		/* Avoid spawning kworkers, since they all might contend
> -		 * for the same mutex like slab_mutex.
> -		 */
> -		queue_work(system_unbound_wq, &map->work);
> +		if (map->ops->map_free_rcu)
> +			map->ops->map_free_rcu(map);
> +		else
> +			bpf_map_put_wq(map);
>   	}
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bpf_map_put);
> @@ -1276,7 +1284,7 @@ struct bpf_map *bpf_map_get_with_uref(u32 ufd)
>   }

>   /* map_idr_lock should have been held */
> -static struct bpf_map *__bpf_map_inc_not_zero(struct bpf_map *map, bool  
> uref)
> +struct bpf_map *__bpf_map_inc_not_zero(struct bpf_map *map, bool uref)
>   {
>   	int refold;

> --
> 2.30.2


  reply	other threads:[~2023-03-06 20:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-03  1:21 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/8] Transit between BPF TCP congestion controls Kui-Feng Lee
2023-03-03  1:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/8] bpf: Maintain the refcount of struct_ops maps directly Kui-Feng Lee
2023-03-06 20:10   ` Stanislav Fomichev [this message]
2023-03-06 21:45     ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-03-06 23:16   ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-03-06 23:54     ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-03-07  0:36       ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-03-03  1:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/8] bpf: Create links for BPF struct_ops maps Kui-Feng Lee
2023-03-06 20:23   ` Stanislav Fomichev
2023-03-06 22:02     ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-03-07  2:11   ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-03-07 18:04     ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-03-03  1:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/8] net: Update an existing TCP congestion control algorithm Kui-Feng Lee
2023-03-07  2:17   ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-03-07 19:17     ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-03-03  1:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/8] libbpf: Create a bpf_link in bpf_map__attach_struct_ops() Kui-Feng Lee
2023-03-03  1:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/8] bpf: Update the struct_ops of a bpf_link Kui-Feng Lee
2023-03-03  1:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 6/8] libbpf: Update a bpf_link with another struct_ops Kui-Feng Lee
2023-03-03  1:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 7/8] libbpf: Use .struct_ops.link section to indicate a struct_ops with a link Kui-Feng Lee
2023-03-03  1:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 8/8] selftests/bpf: Test switching TCP Congestion Control algorithms Kui-Feng Lee

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=ZAZIn9DrvvYh5/QL@google.com \
    --to=sdf@google.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    /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