From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CE7464D; Mon, 14 Apr 2025 00:12:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744589572; cv=none; b=KFItb10f+RFYVLD5neVRdskoe4xfXRaDbqJ+VX6ZQF+GOInuOaHJkiisoKsSmIKBuXE7vuZcL+e7jpnpcDFnER5lGYWE5J2S3qlV6083awpl4qt3vgLPRvdbxSq425sHcisDElvxt31w1j7dct65E78i4Wx/2m/GUTXXBv47Vlc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744589572; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GfefQWRQXZCqdBsIuEMO+B77FeTgP8Ps2lR3cG/ocZQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=W7toa53ApktxGxjW1lmQmrarKZ5TpjTVO3yJNzgwh14/Db5mT6J+L/CSVey96w4FrTAQP+bZE673fBXrdvpxuZ2+GBxWFJpbJr8NP71yivx0/LUeMU0arAljMWZaGIZjrcf+qJWv0a9DEun4IXQrzbqAOlE1lgiIkRc3frqTZYY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=nwyGRfIp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="nwyGRfIp" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E10A1C4CEDD; Mon, 14 Apr 2025 00:12:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1744589572; bh=GfefQWRQXZCqdBsIuEMO+B77FeTgP8Ps2lR3cG/ocZQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=nwyGRfIpXOxKekX1rl9duX6KPjggAn9Hc2lGtsttAMjWo3sTw8sapqDT/ACGWKytd JBs6B6+JnYfoI9QAcZ8VsVj+TaafIQC3b2LO6/Cf6tcXSoz4ZyeBYQbammQN1zwC82 1u5VfCVQFdrEaznKSr9YMvSlwxxQtj3BNp3K2nAswU6u1XHqdjXG73KsKcqn0yfa+j neFU0u4cQRDK35nv9mFwcx/GXIi1OmTMlno/OYqd/wxBXFOpUnH7coeWUztPuWdMXc ANTEq5bi0JOybszU2w5qvdAdhnP4F2HGxdGZRW1E7mT3MbEk4g8I1KQZrZnD7WU/Q6 UAAi6TU5qjqdg== Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 20:12:50 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Matthieu Baerts Cc: Mat Martineau , Paolo Abeni , Jakub Kicinski , davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, mptcp@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.14 20/54] mptcp: move the whole rx path under msk socket lock protection Message-ID: References: <20250403190209.2675485-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20250403190209.2675485-20-sashal@kernel.org> 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; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 01:05:11PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote: >Hi Sasha, > >Thank you for having suggested this patch. > >On 03/04/2025 21:01, Sasha Levin wrote: >> From: Paolo Abeni >> >> [ Upstream commit bc68b0efa1bf923cef1294a631d8e7416c7e06e4 ] >> >> After commit c2e6048fa1cf ("mptcp: fix race in release_cb") we can >> move the whole MPTCP rx path under the socket lock leveraging the >> release_cb. >> >> We can drop a bunch of spin_lock pairs in the receive functions, use >> a single receive queue and invoke __mptcp_move_skbs only when subflows >> ask for it. >> >> This will allow more cleanup in the next patch. >> >> Some changes are worth specific mention: >> >> The msk rcvbuf update now always happens under both the msk and the >> subflow socket lock: we can drop a bunch of ONCE annotation and >> consolidate the checks. >> >> When the skbs move is delayed at msk release callback time, even the >> msk rcvbuf update is delayed; additionally take care of such action in >> __mptcp_move_skbs(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni >> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau >> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) >> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250218-net-next-mptcp-rx-path-refactor-v1-3-4a47d90d7998@kernel.org >> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin > >With Mat, we are unsure why this patch has been selected to be >backported up to v6.6. An AUTOSEL patch has been sent for v6.6, v6.12, >v6.13 and v6.14. We think it would be better not to backport this patch: >this is linked to a new feature, and it changes the way the MPTCP socket >locks are handled. > >Could it then please be possible not to queue this patch to the stable >queues? I'll drop it, thanks! -- Thanks, Sasha