Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: dsa: add Arrow SpeedChips XRS700x driver
From: George McCollister <george.mccollister@gmail.com>
Date: 2020-11-27 21:07:45
Also in:
netdev
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2020-12-02 · Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: dsa: add Arrow SpeedChips XRS700x driver · Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
- 2020-12-02 · Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: dsa: add Arrow SpeedChips XRS700x driver · Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
- 2020-11-27 · Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: dsa: add Arrow SpeedChips XRS700x driver · Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
- 2020-11-27 · Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: dsa: add Arrow SpeedChips XRS700x driver · Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
- 2020-11-27 · Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: dsa: add Arrow SpeedChips XRS700x driver · Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 1:50 PM Vladimir Oltean [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 12:47:41PM -0600, George McCollister wrote:quoted
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020, 12:35 PM Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 00:05:00 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:quoted
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 01:07:12PM -0600, George McCollister wrote:quoted
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 11:56 AM Vladimir Oltean [off-list ref]wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 03:24:18PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:quoted
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 08:25:11PM -0600, George McCollisterwrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
+ {XRS_RX_UNDERSIZE_L, "rx_undersize"}, + {XRS_RX_FRAGMENTS_L, "rx_fragments"}, + {XRS_RX_OVERSIZE_L, "rx_oversize"}, + {XRS_RX_JABBER_L, "rx_jabber"}, + {XRS_RX_ERR_L, "rx_err"}, + {XRS_RX_CRC_L, "rx_crc"},As Vladimir already mentioned to you the statistics which have corresponding entries in struct rtnl_link_stats64 should bereportedquoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
the standard way. The infra for DSA may not be in place yet,so bestquoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
if you just drop those for now.Okay, that clears it up a bit. Just drop these 6? I'll readthroughquoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
that thread again and try to make sense of it.I feel that I should ask. Do you want me to look into exposing RMON interface counters through rtnetlink (I've never done anythinglike thatquoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
before either, but there's a beginning for everything), or are yougoingquoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
to?So I started to add .ndo_get_stats64 based on the hardware counters,butquoted
quoted
quoted
I already hit the first roadblock, as described by the wise words of Documentation/networking/statistics.rst: | The `.ndo_get_stats64` callback can not sleep because of accesses | via `/proc/net/dev`. If driver may sleep when retrieving thestatisticsquoted
quoted
quoted
| from the device it should do so periodically asynchronously andonly returnquoted
quoted
quoted
| a recent copy from `.ndo_get_stats64`. Ethtool interruptcoalescing interfacequoted
quoted
quoted
| allows setting the frequency of refreshing statistics, if needed.I should have probably also mentioned here that unlike most NDOs .ndo_get_stats64 is called without rtnl lock held at all.quoted
quoted
quoted
Unfortunately, I feel this is almost unacceptable for a DSA driverthatquoted
quoted
quoted
more often than not needs to retrieve these counters from a slow and bottlenecked bus (SPI, I2C, MDIO etc). Periodic readouts are not an option, because the only periodic interval that would not putabsurdlyquoted
quoted
quoted
high pressure on the limited SPI bandwidth would be a readoutintervalquoted
quoted
quoted
that gives you very old counters.What's a high interval? It's not uncommon to refresh the stats once a second even in high performance NICs.quoted
quoted
Indeed it seems ndo_get_stats64() usually gets data over something like a local or PCIe bus or from software. I had a brief look to see if I could find another driver that was getting the stats over a slow bus and didn't notice anything. If you haven't already you might do a quick grep and see if anything pops out to you.quoted
What exactly is it that incurs the atomic context? I cannot seem to figure out from this stack trace:I think something in fs/seq_file.c is taking an rcu lock.Not quite. It _is_ the RCU read-side lock that's taken, but it's taken locally from dev_seq_start in net/core/net-procfs.c. The reason is that /proc/net/dev iterates through all interfaces from the current netns, and it is precisely that that creates atomic context. You used to need to hold the rwlock_t dev_base_lock, but now you can also "get away" with the RCU read-side lock. Either way, both are atomic context, so it doesn't help. commit c6d14c84566d6b70ad9dc1618db0dec87cca9300 Author: Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] Date: Wed Nov 4 05:43:23 2009 -0800 net: Introduce for_each_netdev_rcu() iterator Adds RCU management to the list of netdevices. Convert some for_each_netdev() users to RCU version, if it can avoid read_lock-ing dev_base_lock Ie: read_lock(&dev_base_loack); for_each_netdev(net, dev) some_action(); read_unlock(&dev_base_lock); becomes : rcu_read_lock(); for_each_netdev_rcu(net, dev) some_action(); rcu_read_unlock(); Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] Signed-off-by: David S. Miller [off-list ref] So... yeah. As long as this kernel interface exists, it needs to run in atomic context, by construction. Great.quoted
I suppose it doesn't really matter though since the documentation says we can't sleep.You're talking, I suppose, about these words of wisdom in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.rst? | However, the seq_file code (by design) will not sleep between the calls | to start() and stop(), so holding a lock during that time is a | reasonable thing to do. The seq_file code will also avoid taking any | other locks while the iterator is active. It _doesn't_ say that you can't sleep between start() and stop(), right? It just says that if you want to keep the seq_file iterator atomic, the seq_file code is not sabotaging you by sleeping. But you still could sleep if you wanted to. Back to the statistics counters. How accurate do the counters in /proc/net/dev need to be? What programs consume those? Could they be more out of date than the ones retrieved through rtnetlink?ifconfig does for sure.quoted
I'm thinking that maybe we could introduce another ndo, something like .ndo_get_stats64_blocking, that could be called from all places except from net/core/net-procfs.c. That one could still call the non-blocking variant. Then, depending on the answer to the question "how inaccurate could we reasonably leave /proc/net/dev", we could: - just return zeroes there - return the counters cached from the last blocking callI'd rather not introduce divergent behavior like that. Is the periodic refresh really that awful? We're mostly talking error counters here so every second or every few seconds should be perfectly fine.That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Worst case is about a 100kbp/s management bus and with the amount of data we're talking about that should be no problem so long as there's a way to raise the interval or disable it entirely.100 Kbps = 12.5KB/s. sja1105 has 93 64-bit counters, and during every counter refresh cycle I
Yeah, that's quite big. The xrs700x counters are only 16 bit. They need to be polled on an interval anyway or they will roll.
would need to get some counters from the beginning of that range, some from the middle and some from the end. With all the back-and-forth between the sja1105 driver and the SPI controller driver, and the protocol overhead associated with creating a "SPI read" message, it is all in all more efficient to just issue a burst read operation for all the counters, even ones that I'm not going to use. So let's go with that, 93x8 bytes (and ignore protocol overhead) = 744 bytes of SPI I/O per second. At a throughput of 12.5KB/s, that takes 59 ms to complete, and that's just for the raw I/O, that thing which keeps the SPI mutex locked. You know what else I could do during that time? Anything else! Like for example perform PTP timestamp reconstruction, which has a hard deadline at 135 ms after the packet was received, and would appreciate if the SPI mutex was not locked for 59 ms every second.
Indeed, however if you need to acquire this data at all it's going to burden the system at that time so unless you're able to stretch out the reads over a length of time whether or not you're polling every second or once a day may not matter if you're never able to miss a deadline.
And all of that, for what benefit? Honestly any periodic I/O over the management interface is too much I/O, unless there is any strong reason to have it.
True enough.
Also, even the simple idea of providing out-of-date counters to user space running in syscall context has me scratching my head. I can only think of all the drivers in selftests that are checking statistics counters before, then they send a packet, then they check the counters after. What do those need to do, put a sleep to make sure the counters were updated?
Yeah, I don't know enough about how these are used. I'll defer to you. I apologize if I'm slow at responding. Yesterday and today are holidays in the US.