Re: [PATCH v1 bpf-next 03/11] tcp: Migrate TCP_ESTABLISHED/TCP_SYN_RECV sockets in accept queues.
From: Martin KaFai Lau <hidden>
Date: 2020-12-05 01:44:24
Also in:
bpf, lkml
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 11:44:10PM +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: [ ... ]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/net/core/sock_reuseport.c b/net/core/sock_reuseport.c index fd133516ac0e..60d7c1f28809 100644 --- a/net/core/sock_reuseport.c +++ b/net/core/sock_reuseport.c@@ -216,9 +216,11 @@ int reuseport_add_sock(struct sock *sk, struct sock *sk2, bool bind_inany) } EXPORT_SYMBOL(reuseport_add_sock); -void reuseport_detach_sock(struct sock *sk) +struct sock *reuseport_detach_sock(struct sock *sk) { struct sock_reuseport *reuse; + struct bpf_prog *prog; + struct sock *nsk = NULL; int i; spin_lock_bh(&reuseport_lock);@@ -242,8 +244,12 @@ void reuseport_detach_sock(struct sock *sk) reuse->num_socks--; reuse->socks[i] = reuse->socks[reuse->num_socks]; + prog = rcu_dereference(reuse->prog);
Is it under rcu_read_lock() here?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
if (sk->sk_protocol == IPPROTO_TCP) { + if (reuse->num_socks && !prog) + nsk = i == reuse->num_socks ? reuse->socks[i - 1] : reuse->socks[i]; + reuse->num_closed_socks++; reuse->socks[reuse->max_socks - reuse->num_closed_socks] = sk; } else {@@ -264,6 +270,8 @@ void reuseport_detach_sock(struct sock *sk) call_rcu(&reuse->rcu, reuseport_free_rcu); out: spin_unlock_bh(&reuseport_lock); + + return nsk; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(reuseport_detach_sock);diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c index 1451aa9712b0..b27241ea96bd 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c@@ -992,6 +992,36 @@ struct sock *inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add(struct sock *sk, } EXPORT_SYMBOL(inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add); +void inet_csk_reqsk_queue_migrate(struct sock *sk, struct sock *nsk) +{ + struct request_sock_queue *old_accept_queue, *new_accept_queue; + + old_accept_queue = &inet_csk(sk)->icsk_accept_queue; + new_accept_queue = &inet_csk(nsk)->icsk_accept_queue; + + spin_lock(&old_accept_queue->rskq_lock); + spin_lock(&new_accept_queue->rskq_lock);
I am also not very thrilled on this double spin_lock. Can this be done in (or like) inet_csk_listen_stop() instead?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ + if (old_accept_queue->rskq_accept_head) { + if (new_accept_queue->rskq_accept_head) + old_accept_queue->rskq_accept_tail->dl_next = + new_accept_queue->rskq_accept_head; + else + new_accept_queue->rskq_accept_tail = old_accept_queue->rskq_accept_tail; + + new_accept_queue->rskq_accept_head = old_accept_queue->rskq_accept_head; + old_accept_queue->rskq_accept_head = NULL; + old_accept_queue->rskq_accept_tail = NULL; + + WRITE_ONCE(nsk->sk_ack_backlog, nsk->sk_ack_backlog + sk->sk_ack_backlog); + WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_ack_backlog, 0); + } + + spin_unlock(&new_accept_queue->rskq_lock); + spin_unlock(&old_accept_queue->rskq_lock); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(inet_csk_reqsk_queue_migrate); + struct sock *inet_csk_complete_hashdance(struct sock *sk, struct sock *child, struct request_sock *req, bool own_req) {diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c b/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c index 45fb450b4522..545538a6bfac 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c@@ -681,6 +681,7 @@ void inet_unhash(struct sock *sk) { struct inet_hashinfo *hashinfo = sk->sk_prot->h.hashinfo; struct inet_listen_hashbucket *ilb = NULL; + struct sock *nsk; spinlock_t *lock; if (sk_unhashed(sk))@@ -696,8 +697,12 @@ void inet_unhash(struct sock *sk) if (sk_unhashed(sk)) goto unlock; - if (rcu_access_pointer(sk->sk_reuseport_cb)) - reuseport_detach_sock(sk); + if (rcu_access_pointer(sk->sk_reuseport_cb)) { + nsk = reuseport_detach_sock(sk); + if (nsk) + inet_csk_reqsk_queue_migrate(sk, nsk); + } + if (ilb) { inet_unhash2(hashinfo, sk); ilb->count--;-- 2.17.2 (Apple Git-113)