From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sched: change tcf_del_walker() to take idrinfo->lock
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:46:24 +0300
Message-ID: <vbfmusknypr.fsf@reg-r-vrt-018-180.mtr.labs.mlnx>
References: <CAM_iQpVhTeKMQmt55zuZ3vTgtrMajzDo3H-3Nw7+UdrGJCJDrA@mail.gmail.com> <1536328317-8170-1-git-send-email-vladbu@mellanox.com> <CAM_iQpW1z+dNLiazr87HupqzYPeBnFR5fyVfsXkhwZcRW0LrSA@mail.gmail.com> <vbfefdzm74n.fsf@reg-r-vrt-018-180.mtr.labs.mlnx> <CAM_iQpUQeu0xeurA6e4pC8C7Ha04srZEGcZVCAwstj-NLg-Xmw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-eopbgr80074.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([40.107.8.74]:51388
        "EHLO EUR04-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1727649AbeINQAa (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:00:30 -0400
In-reply-to: <CAM_iQpUQeu0xeurA6e4pC8C7Ha04srZEGcZVCAwstj-NLg-Xmw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>


On Thu 13 Sep 2018 at 17:13, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:51 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@mellanox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri 07 Sep 2018 at 19:12, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 6:52 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@mellanox.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Action API was changed to work with actions and action_idr in concurrency
>> >> safe manner, however tcf_del_walker() still uses actions without taking a
>> >> reference or idrinfo->lock first, and deletes them directly, disregarding
>> >> possible concurrent delete.
>> >>
>> >> Add tc_action_wq workqueue to action API. Implement
>> >> tcf_idr_release_unsafe() that assumes external synchronization by caller
>> >> and delays blocking action cleanup part to tc_action_wq workqueue. Extend
>> >> tcf_action_cleanup() with 'async' argument to indicate that function should
>> >> free action asynchronously.
>> >
>> > Where exactly is blocking in tcf_action_cleanup()?
>> >
>> > From your code, it looks like free_tcf(), but from my observation,
>> > the only blocking function inside is tcf_action_goto_chain_fini()
>> > which calls __tcf_chain_put(). But, __tcf_chain_put() is blocking
>> > _ONLY_ when tc_chain_notify() is called, for tc action it is never
>> > called.
>> >
>> > So, what else is blocking?
>>
>> __tcf_chain_put() calls tc_chain_tmplt_del(), which calls
>> ops->tmplt_destroy(). This last function uses hw offload API, which is
>> blocking.
>
> Good to know.
>
> Can we just make ops->tmplt_destroy() to use workqueue?
> Making tc action to workqueue seems overkill, for me.

How about changing tcf_chain_put_by_act() to use tc_filter_wq, instead
of directly calling __tcf_chain_put()? IMO it is a better solution
because it benefits all classifiers, instead of requiring every
classifier with templates support to implement non-blocking
ops->tmplt_destroy().