Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/5] Make SWITCHDEV_FDB_{ADD,DEL}_TO_DEVICE blocking

Ido Schimmel
2021-08-23T16:02:28Z

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 06:42:44PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 06:18:08PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 05:29:53PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 03:16:48PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > > > I was thinking about the following case:
> > > >
> > > > t0 - <MAC1,VID1,P1> is added in syscall context under 'hash_lock'
> > > > t1 - br_fdb_delete_by_port() flushes entries under 'hash_lock' in
> > > > response to STP state. Notifications are added to 'deferred' list
> > > > t2 - switchdev_deferred_process() is called in syscall context
> > > > t3 - <MAC1,VID1,P1> is notified as blocking
> > > >
> > > > Updates to the SW FDB are protected by 'hash_lock', but updates to the
> > > > HW FDB are not. In this case, <MAC1,VID1,P1> does not exist in SW, but
> > > > it will exist in HW.
> > > >
> > > > Another case assuming switchdev_deferred_process() is called first:
> > > >
> > > > t0 - switchdev_deferred_process() is called in syscall context
> > > > t1 - <MAC1,VID,P1> is learned under 'hash_lock'. Notification is added
> > > > to 'deferred' list
> > > > t2 - <MAC1,VID1,P1> is modified in syscall context under 'hash_lock' to
> > > > <MAC1,VID1,P2>
> > > > t3 - <MAC1,VID1,P2> is notified as blocking
> > > > t4 - <MAC1,VID1,P1> is notified as blocking (next time the 'deferred'
> > > > list is processed)
> > > >
> > > > In this case, the HW will have <MAC1,VID1,P1>, but SW will have
> > > > <MAC1,VID1,P2>
> > >
> > > Ok, so if the hardware FDB entry needs to be updated under the same
> > > hash_lock as the software FDB entry, then it seems that the goal of
> > > updating the hardware FDB synchronously and in a sleepable manner is if
> > > the data path defers the learning to sleepable context too. That in turn
> > > means that there will be 'dead time' between the reception of a packet
> > > from a given {MAC SA, VID} flow and the learning of that address. So I
> > > don't think that is really desirable. So I don't know if it is actually
> > > realistic to do this.
> > >
> > > Can we drop it from the requirements of this change, or do you feel like
> > > it's not worth it to make my change if this problem is not solved?
> >
> > I didn't pose it as a requirement, but as a desirable goal that I don't
> > know how to achieve w/o a surgery in the bridge driver that Nik and you
> > (understandably) don't like.
> >
> > Regarding a more practical solution, earlier versions (not what you
> > posted yesterday) have the undesirable properties of being both
> > asynchronous (current state) and mandating RTNL to be held. If we are
> > going with the asynchronous model, then I think we should have a model
> > that doesn't force RTNL and allows batching.
> >
> > I have the following proposal, which I believe solves your problem and
> > allows for batching without RTNL:
> >
> > The pattern of enqueuing a work item per-entry is not very smart.
> > Instead, it is better to to add the notification info to a list
> > (protected by a spin lock) and scheduling a single work item whose
> > purpose is to dequeue entries from this list and batch process them.
>
> I don't have hardware where FDB entries can be installed in bulk, so
> this is new to me. Might make sense though where you are in fact talking
> to firmware, and the firmware is in fact still committing to hardware
> one by one, you are still reducing the number of round trips.

Yes

>
> > Inside the work item you would do something like:
> >
> > spin_lock_bh()
> > list_splice_init()
> > spin_unlock_bh()
> >
> > mutex_lock() // rtnl or preferably private lock
> > list_for_each_entry_safe()
> > // process entry
> > cond_resched()
> > mutex_unlock()
>
> When is the work item scheduled in your proposal?

Calling queue_work() whenever you get a notification. The work item
might already be queued, which is fine.

> I assume not only when SWITCHDEV_FDB_FLUSH_TO_DEVICE is emitted. Is
> there some sort of timer to allow for some batching to occur?

You can add an hysteresis timer if you want, but I don't think it's
necessary. Assuming user space is programming entries at a high rate,
then by the time you finish a batch, you will have a new one enqueued.

>
> >
> > In del_nbp(), after br_fdb_delete_by_port(), the bridge will emit some
> > new blocking event (e.g., SWITCHDEV_FDB_FLUSH_TO_DEVICE) that will
> > instruct the driver to flush all its pending FDB notifications. You
> > don't strictly need this notification because of the
> > netdev_upper_dev_unlink() that follows, but it helps in making things
> > more structured.
> >
> > Pros:
> >
> > 1. Solves your problem?
> > 2. Pattern is not worse than what we currently have
> > 3. Does not force RTNL
> > 4. Allows for batching. For example, mlxsw has the ability to program up
> > to 64 entries in one transaction with the device. I assume other devices
> > in the same grade have similar capabilities
> >
> > Cons:
> >
> > 1. Asynchronous
> > 2. Pattern we will see in multiple drivers? Can consider migrating it
> > into switchdev itself at some point
>
> I can already flush_workqueue(dsa_owq) in dsa_port_pre_bridge_leave()
> and this will solve the problem in the same way, will it not?

Problem is that you will deadlock if your work item tries to take RTNL.

>
> It's not that I don't have driver-level solutions and hook points.
> My concern is that there are way too many moving parts and the entrance
> barrier for a new switchdev driver is getting higher and higher to
> achieve even basic stuff.

I understand the frustration, but that's my best proposal at the moment.
IMO, it doesn't make things worse and has some nice advantages.

>
> For example, I need to maintain a DSA driver and a switchdev driver for
> the exact same class of hardware (ocelot is switchdev, felix is DSA, but
> the hardware is the same) and it is just so annoying that the interaction
> with switchdev is so verbose and open-coded, it just leads to so much
> duplication of basic patterns.
> When I add support for SWITCHDEV_FDB_{ADD,DEL}_TO_DEVICE in ocelot I
> really don't want to add a boatload of code, all copied from DSA.
>
> > 3. Something I missed / overlooked
> >
> > > There is of course the option of going half-way too, just like for
> > > SWITCHDEV_PORT_ATTR_SET. You notify it once, synchronously, on the
> > > atomic chain, the switchdev throws as many errors as it can reasonably
> > > can, then you defer the actual installation which means a hardware access.
> >
> > Yes, the above proposal has the same property. You can throw errors
> > before enqueueing the notification info on your list.