From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f182.google.com (mail-pl1-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEC2D2594B9; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 02:46:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.182 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736304412; cv=none; b=D0m+JtmFi9i69SkE3G/NhTc7Ck/5V7gfuF3ZJ3bu3+8NSxmEIsjMQ/pdrUIpiUPVplFCDqHGyt/PHxIPpCuLyXWm/yKMj4uXl8ihMd2ngrJmJo++8tDDCkAPaMlpm4JQ0m0lHRFBS2KL2Twqt59LGLmeKN+Ut7yk9uDF9MDAItQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736304412; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9eWmdF6gs0tLkHhvzbNzvV9+rB0KFa6F0HYvPhFDViY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=UJIcCH+1FjrHDl2FZ4X57G+UPtorRUI5Ri/iY2Y2fqn8A+liJqogxsN0uu38AtGhZw8M1oZ5sOTmjtzYYrC3OeAHN+UH6jOO4+S1QFO4kQ2uziiLGopK7vKKNNMZ3d+NqFREoHE9QQV6bgHszRX+JwE/Oq9vSmjkmgbGeYHQOkY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=b3t+pXwD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.182 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="b3t+pXwD" Received: by mail-pl1-f182.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2156e078563so208766665ad.2; Tue, 07 Jan 2025 18:46:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1736304410; x=1736909210; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=EwMIaOWIX6HK6xtZj32qqz+aCv3HfqyGs0CSVnT0OGc=; b=b3t+pXwD0O77OgXICkQ3J68IpCc6D2fOk01q841mbFPelFLZKKn3iPAUQjO4GyjZYj qCcp2UwLxCZVDYPxSyIL3ysZgubJpZv3ycKyS0fBztzRGtTP+9Zu8u2ZS0G3Gr4p9s7c Jzm80yBn2G3TYr20zEbaWd3+HPQimFsnRsIvip6sdJTan/uXi2fOijEVKEHWxGN2/94q hVFUpQom7z5Pz4JniLSDIXVn+39seDRpUorEMq39OX/PVAKxj05ldQkaikPfZfIBZGBz 2sKxUzdegpCUhtl+xyZ67XKdP6zCGi3W3XOdTe/YUF8+s0D4evM13J29VyJhl75AHHP5 QTsA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736304410; x=1736909210; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=EwMIaOWIX6HK6xtZj32qqz+aCv3HfqyGs0CSVnT0OGc=; b=oE97Os0R4SLRZ/05defASBZxEj318hJBV8zw9OMrMOqtOpDf2QEgxgEvrUMwSlyB0U I6ggSvjIWwcqSbWFVvzjq7XiOuwbWJJaoc7MaEPtcAVLEq9MhXs+G0sGoOJur1RdBbrL x335rXVSMzpBWzRnXURM3QSfy7dfIFttYbpmz2tmIzc140+xU0h/iZodx6/Nuk+47xMC D82xrFyqADYcLxSYeKrg7/d7t9uJQ73UYknA1IhsMjIzvzrxrs5nqsr+W2blGb6ZROpu IRl0iV7apMWoKj/TObkMjthVYRRzV4/KWk3a4i512MkpJYWSNDa0sC00LcnzhhR+2qlF rNhw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVDtcOsTAHwDxNnhKYFIZeWEe7CWwIORC1kzo2PWxzuEZzYJACOAKbCvLzZYbpf+ONohf5Tnd5I4q+ZVE8ytLCR@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCXcQ8LQtWAHHhYbfhY5LTENcIELLHMMHDPV1dsCqnTDfNTjVsm91cdkyY+NY7XfFnAR3u4OJi1j@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCXoEC84U1ozQFiwZLMPzKhvNgxvmp5tBMgh2/wE32gkAeTXJmdenO85MRR55EvDLJs2ttAsmebC6K+d+Y0=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyHkTCdbnTd2Jd8hTkkRIWMWV2MPJKQJ8HofeFKmxc1639OJDL3 LBQbonLON7/Cf7xgd/xfOQcAUanEPk1X/VDAaYNSjYwN7OTtWJld X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvAmoHeFQRjR9n/i5qDIYA9ze48Qkr0H96Df5KONFCGd66LYDbcZtolNH+fzR9 ZVoC5O97wu5Ch9temqr6P2jBoPccZ2rYd1Fkh706mx/qYIQNMdXrOAJOBxq0o3M6wtwSMVbRsFr hmE+8/2AiOJgZm2BkOgsFy/IPhltWLr1FeMAq1+9yBUgk4N1Vo772/X4uyK7y4VnD3I+OW75bia XOnJqAXnr0Iy6pxq6uVxoRNSu8jltBCC1/n6GxAFdwD2QWAFH4wi6dsyF89Uw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFWAl/uDIwvcJXeb2PkQ0/f6+UTvUH+WsAb/7LCQZYCq1eMHz9xtQSe4bIMQ/T7oHi8QGnAmg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:1cf:b0:21a:8300:b9d5 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-21a83f4cd36mr21203355ad.23.1736304410114; Tue, 07 Jan 2025 18:46:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from fedora ([43.228.180.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-219dc9f7356sm317570365ad.193.2025.01.07.18.46.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 Jan 2025 18:46:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 02:46:40 +0000 From: Hangbin Liu To: Jianbo Liu Cc: Jakub Kicinski , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh , Andy Gospodarek , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Nikolay Aleksandrov , Simon Horman , Tariq Toukan , Andrew Lunn , Shuah Khan , Steffen Klassert , Herbert Xu , Sabrina Dubroca , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/2] bond: fix xfrm offload feature during init Message-ID: References: <20241211071127.38452-1-liuhangbin@gmail.com> <20241212062734.182a0164@kernel.org> <20241213193127.4c31ef80@kernel.org> <1d8c901f-e292-43e4-970f-8440b26e92b0@nvidia.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 10:47:16AM +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote: > On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 11:33:34AM +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote: > > > > Re-locking doesn't look great, glancing at the code I don't see any > > > > obvious better workarounds. Easiest fix would be to don't let the > > > > drivers sleep in the callbacks and then we can go back to a spin lock. > > > > Maybe nvidia people have better ideas, I'm not familiar with this > > > > offload. > > > > > > I don't know how to disable bonding sleeping since we use mutex_lock now. > > > Hi Jianbo, do you have any idea? > > > > > > > I think we should allow drivers to sleep in the callbacks. So, maybe it's > > better to move driver's xdo_dev_state_delete out of state's spin lock. > > I just check the code, xfrm_dev_state_delete() and later > dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(x) have too many xfrm_state x > checks. Can we really move it out of spin lock from xfrm_state_delete() I tried to move the mutex lock code to a work queue, but found we need to check (ipsec->xs == xs) in bonding. So we still need xfrm_state x during bond ipsec gc. So either we add a new lock for xfrm_state, or we need to unlock spin lock in bonding bond_ipsec_del_sa(). Cc IPsec experts to see if they have any comments. Background: The xfrm_dev_state_delete() in xfrm_state_delete() is protected by spin lock. But the driver delete ops dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(x) may sleep, e.g. bond_ipsec_del_sa(). What we should deal with this issue? Thanks Hangbin