From: Florian Bezdeka <florian.bezdeka@siemens.com>
To: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/core: Enable socket busy polling on -RT
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:43:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d085757ed5607e82b1cd09d10d4c9f73bbdf3154.camel@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230523111518.21512-1-kurt@linutronix.de>
Hi Kurt,
On Tue, 2023-05-23 at 13:15 +0200, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
> Busy polling is currently not allowed on PREEMPT_RT, because it disables
> preemption while invoking the NAPI callback. It is not possible to acquire
> sleeping locks with disabled preemption. For details see commit
> 20ab39d13e2e ("net/core: disable NET_RX_BUSY_POLL on PREEMPT_RT").
Is that something that we could consider as Bug-Fix for 6.1 and request
a backport, or would you consider that as new feature?
>
> However, strict cyclic and/or low latency network applications may prefer busy
> polling e.g., using AF_XDP instead of interrupt driven communication.
>
> The preempt_disable() is used in order to prevent the poll_owner and NAPI owner
> to be preempted while owning the resource to ensure progress. Netpoll performs
> busy polling in order to acquire the lock. NAPI is locked by setting the
> NAPIF_STATE_SCHED flag. There is no busy polling if the flag is set and the
> "owner" is preempted. Worst case is that the task owning NAPI gets preempted and
> NAPI processing stalls. This is can be prevented by properly prioritising the
> tasks within the system.
>
> Allow RX_BUSY_POLL on PREEMPT_RT if NETPOLL is disabled. Don't disable
> preemption on PREEMPT_RT within the busy poll loop.
>
> Tested on x86 hardware with v6.1-RT and v6.3-RT on Intel i225 (igc) with
> AF_XDP/ZC sockets configured to run in busy polling mode.
That is exactly our use case as well and we would like to have it in
6.1. Any (technical) reasons that prevent a backport?
As some time has already passed since patch submission I will not cut
the rest...
Best regards,
Florian
>
> Suggested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>
> ---
>
> Changes since RFC:
>
> * Commit message
>
> Previous version:
>
> * https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230517110950.78322-1-kurt@linutronix.de/
>
> net/Kconfig | 2 +-
> net/core/dev.c | 9 ++++++---
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/Kconfig b/net/Kconfig
> index 7d39c1773eb4..2fb25b534df5 100644
> --- a/net/Kconfig
> +++ b/net/Kconfig
> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ config CGROUP_NET_CLASSID
>
> config NET_RX_BUSY_POLL
> bool
> - default y if !PREEMPT_RT
> + default y if !PREEMPT_RT || (PREEMPT_RT && !NETCONSOLE)
>
> config BQL
> bool
> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index b3c13e041935..3393c2f3dbe8 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -6197,7 +6197,8 @@ void napi_busy_loop(unsigned int napi_id,
> if (!napi)
> goto out;
>
> - preempt_disable();
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> + preempt_disable();
> for (;;) {
> int work = 0;
>
> @@ -6239,7 +6240,8 @@ void napi_busy_loop(unsigned int napi_id,
> if (unlikely(need_resched())) {
> if (napi_poll)
> busy_poll_stop(napi, have_poll_lock, prefer_busy_poll, budget);
> - preempt_enable();
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> + preempt_enable();
> rcu_read_unlock();
> cond_resched();
> if (loop_end(loop_end_arg, start_time))
> @@ -6250,7 +6252,8 @@ void napi_busy_loop(unsigned int napi_id,
> }
> if (napi_poll)
> busy_poll_stop(napi, have_poll_lock, prefer_busy_poll, budget);
> - preempt_enable();
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> + preempt_enable();
> out:
> rcu_read_unlock();
> }
> --
> 2.30.2
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-27 11:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-23 11:15 [PATCH net-next] net/core: Enable socket busy polling on -RT Kurt Kanzenbach
2023-05-25 11:16 ` Paolo Abeni
2023-05-25 13:49 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2023-05-26 8:00 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2023-10-27 11:43 ` Florian Bezdeka [this message]
2023-10-28 10:09 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2023-10-30 11:29 ` Florian Bezdeka
2023-11-08 7:41 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
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=d085757ed5607e82b1cd09d10d4c9f73bbdf3154.camel@siemens.com \
--to=florian.bezdeka@siemens.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kurt@linutronix.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).