Linux Kernel Selftest development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
To: <lmb@isovalent.com>
Cc: <andrii@kernel.org>, <ast@kernel.org>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	<daniel@iogearbox.net>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
	<dsahern@kernel.org>, <edumazet@google.com>, <haoluo@google.com>,
	<hemanthmalla@gmail.com>, <joe@wand.net.nz>,
	<john.fastabend@gmail.com>, <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	<kpsingh@kernel.org>, <kuba@kernel.org>, <kuniyu@amazon.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	<martin.lau@linux.dev>, <mykolal@fb.com>,
	<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <pabeni@redhat.com>, <sdf@google.com>,
	<shuah@kernel.org>, <song@kernel.org>,
	<willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>, <yhs@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/6] net: remove duplicate reuseport_lookup functions
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 08:00:58 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230621150058.59250-1-kuniyu@amazon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAN+4W8gYuW5P3t5881YdMq1pYnG9DsQJFiJWPoLFsKVsZiLLQQ@mail.gmail.com>

From: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@isovalent.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 09:01:15 +0100
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 7:31 PM Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com> wrote:
> >
> > Good point.  This is based on an assumption that all SO_REUSEPORT
> > sockets have the same score, which is wrong for two corner cases
> > if reuseport_has_conns() == true :
> >
> >   1) SO_INCOMING_CPU is set
> >      -> selected sk might have +1 score
> >
> >   2) BPF prog returns ESTABLISHED and/or SO_INCOMING_CPU sk
> >      -> selected sk will have more than 8
> >
> > Using the old score could trigger more lookups depending on the
> > order that sockets are created.
> 
> So the result will still be correct, but it's less performant? Happy
> to fix a perf regression, but if the result is incorrect this might
> need a separate fix?

Right, the result is always correct.

If BPF prog selects a different socket per lookup, there is no
consistency, but it _is_ corret.


> I did some more digging. I think this was introduced by commit
> efc6b6f6c311 ("udp: Improve load balancing for SO_REUSEPORT.") which
> unfortunately ran into a merge conflict. That resulted in Dave Miller
> moving the bug around in commit a57066b1a019 ("Merge
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net"). Can you
> take a look and let me know if you think that is correct?

Yes, I should have updated the score too in efc6b6f6c311 to save
unneeded lookups.  The conflict itself was resolved properly.

  reply	other threads:[~2023-06-21 15:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-06-13 10:14 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/6] Add SO_REUSEPORT support for TC bpf_sk_assign Lorenz Bauer
2023-06-13 10:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/6] net: export inet_lookup_reuseport and inet6_lookup_reuseport Lorenz Bauer
2023-06-13 10:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/6] net: document inet[6]_lookup_reuseport sk_state requirements Lorenz Bauer
2023-06-13 10:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/6] net: remove duplicate reuseport_lookup functions Lorenz Bauer
2023-06-13 15:32   ` Simon Horman
2023-06-14 15:42     ` Lorenz Bauer
2023-06-15  7:21       ` Simon Horman
2023-06-13 17:26   ` kernel test robot
2023-06-13 18:56   ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2023-06-14 15:25     ` Lorenz Bauer
2023-06-14 16:52       ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2023-06-20 14:26     ` Lorenz Bauer
2023-06-20 18:31       ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2023-06-21  8:01         ` Lorenz Bauer
2023-06-21 13:49         ` Lorenz Bauer
2023-06-21 15:00           ` Kuniyuki Iwashima [this message]
2023-06-13 10:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/6] net: remove duplicate sk_lookup helpers Lorenz Bauer
2023-06-13 19:03   ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2023-06-13 19:41   ` kernel test robot
2023-06-13 10:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/6] bpf, net: Support SO_REUSEPORT sockets with bpf_sk_assign Lorenz Bauer
2023-06-13 17:26   ` kernel test robot
2023-06-13 10:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 6/6] selftests/bpf: Test that SO_REUSEPORT can be used with sk_assign helper Lorenz Bauer

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=20230621150058.59250-1-kuniyu@amazon.com \
    --to=kuniyu@amazon.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=haoluo@google.com \
    --cc=hemanthmalla@gmail.com \
    --cc=joe@wand.net.nz \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lmb@isovalent.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=mykolal@fb.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=sdf@google.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
    --cc=yhs@fb.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