From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, daniel@iogearbox.net,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, lmb@cloudflare.com
Subject: Re: [bpf-next PATCH v3 2/6] bpf, sockmap: On receive programs try to fast track SK_PASS ingress
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:33:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5f8477448f66e_370c208e4@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h7qzrf3c.fsf@cloudflare.com>
Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> Hey John,
>
> Exiting to see this work :-)
>
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 08:36 PM CEST, John Fastabend wrote:
> > When we receive an skb and the ingress skb verdict program returns
> > SK_PASS we currently set the ingress flag and put it on the workqueue
> > so it can be turned into a sk_msg and put on the sk_msg ingress queue.
> > Then finally telling userspace with data_ready hook.
> >
> > Here we observe that if the workqueue is empty then we can try to
> > convert into a sk_msg type and call data_ready directly without
> > bouncing through a workqueue. Its a common pattern to have a recv
> > verdict program for visibility that always returns SK_PASS. In this
> > case unless there is an ENOMEM error or we overrun the socket we
> > can avoid the workqueue completely only using it when we fall back
> > to error cases caused by memory pressure.
> >
> > By doing this we eliminate another case where data may be dropped
> > if errors occur on memory limits in workqueue.
> >
> > Fixes: 51199405f9672 ("bpf: skb_verdict, support SK_PASS on RX BPF path")
> > Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > net/core/skmsg.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/skmsg.c b/net/core/skmsg.c
> > index 040ae1d75b65..4b160d97b7f9 100644
> > --- a/net/core/skmsg.c
> > +++ b/net/core/skmsg.c
> > @@ -773,6 +773,7 @@ static void sk_psock_verdict_apply(struct sk_psock *psock,
> > {
> > struct tcp_skb_cb *tcp;
> > struct sock *sk_other;
> > + int err = -EIO;
> >
> > switch (verdict) {
> > case __SK_PASS:
> > @@ -784,8 +785,20 @@ static void sk_psock_verdict_apply(struct sk_psock *psock,
> >
> > tcp = TCP_SKB_CB(skb);
> > tcp->bpf.flags |= BPF_F_INGRESS;
> > - skb_queue_tail(&psock->ingress_skb, skb);
> > - schedule_work(&psock->work);
> > +
> > + /* If the queue is empty then we can submit directly
> > + * into the msg queue. If its not empty we have to
> > + * queue work otherwise we may get OOO data. Otherwise,
> > + * if sk_psock_skb_ingress errors will be handled by
> > + * retrying later from workqueue.
> > + */
> > + if (skb_queue_empty(&psock->ingress_skb)) {
> > + err = sk_psock_skb_ingress(psock, skb);
>
> When going through the workqueue (sk_psock_backlog), we will also check
> if socket didn't get detached from the process, that is if
> psock->sk->sk_socket != NULL, before queueing into msg queue.
The sk_socket check is only for the egress path,
sk_psock_handle_skb -> skb_send_sock_locked -> kernel_sendmsg_locked
Then the do_tcp_sendpages() uses sk_socket and I don't see any checks for
sk_socket being set. Although I think its worth looking through to see
if the psock/sk state is always such that we have sk_socket there I
don't recall off-hand where that is null'd.
But, to answer your question this is ingress only and here we don't
use sk_socket for anything so I don't see any reason the check is
needed. All that is done here is converting to skmsg and posting
onto ingress queue.
>
> Do we need a similar check here?
>
Don't think so for above reason. Thanks for asking though and let me
know if you see something.
I think to make the workqueue path symmetric I'll move the check there
into the egress branch.
> > + }
> > + if (err < 0) {
> > + skb_queue_tail(&psock->ingress_skb, skb);
> > + schedule_work(&psock->work);
> > + }
> > break;
> > case __SK_REDIRECT:
> > sk_psock_skb_redirect(skb);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-12 15:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-09 18:35 [bpf-next PATCH v2 0/6] sockmap/sk_skb program memory acct fixes John Fastabend
2020-10-09 18:36 ` [bpf-next PATCH v3 1/6] bpf, sockmap: skb verdict SK_PASS to self already checked rmem limits John Fastabend
2020-10-09 18:36 ` [bpf-next PATCH v3 2/6] bpf, sockmap: On receive programs try to fast track SK_PASS ingress John Fastabend
2020-10-12 9:03 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2020-10-12 15:33 ` John Fastabend [this message]
2020-10-13 19:43 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2020-10-09 18:36 ` [bpf-next PATCH v3 3/6] bpf, sockmap: remove skb_set_owner_w wmem will be taken later from sendpage John Fastabend
2020-10-09 18:37 ` [bpf-next PATCH v3 4/6] bpf, sockmap: remove dropped data on errors in redirect case John Fastabend
2020-10-12 12:04 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2020-10-12 17:19 ` John Fastabend
2020-10-13 10:27 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2020-10-09 18:37 ` [bpf-next PATCH v3 5/6] bpf, sockmap: Remove skb_orphan and let normal skb_kfree do cleanup John Fastabend
2020-10-09 18:37 ` [bpf-next PATCH v3 6/6] bpf, sockmap: Add memory accounting so skbs on ingress lists are visible John Fastabend
2020-10-12 1:10 ` [bpf-next PATCH v2 0/6] sockmap/sk_skb program memory acct fixes 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=5f8477448f66e_370c208e4@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch \
--to=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jakub@cloudflare.com \
--cc=lmb@cloudflare.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.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