Re: [PATCHv7 bpf-next 1/4] bpf: run devmap xdp_prog on flush instead of bulk enqueue

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:29:40PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:

Jesper Dangaard Brouer [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 10:35:51 -0700
Martin KaFai Lau [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:22:19AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:

quoted

Hangbin Liu [off-list ref] writes:
  

quoted

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:17:11PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:  

quoted

quoted

 static void bq_xmit_all(struct xdp_dev_bulk_queue *bq, u32 flags)
 {
 	struct net_device *dev = bq->dev;
-	int sent = 0, err = 0;
+	int sent = 0, drops = 0, err = 0;
+	unsigned int cnt = bq->count;
+	int to_send = cnt;
 	int i;
 
-	if (unlikely(!bq->count))
+	if (unlikely(!cnt))
 		return;
 
-	for (i = 0; i < bq->count; i++) {
+	for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
 		struct xdp_frame *xdpf = bq->q[i];
 
 		prefetch(xdpf);
 	}
 
-	sent = dev->netdev_ops->ndo_xdp_xmit(dev, bq->count, bq->q, flags);
+	if (bq->xdp_prog) {  

bq->xdp_prog is used here
  

quoted

+		to_send = dev_map_bpf_prog_run(bq->xdp_prog, bq->q, cnt, dev);
+		if (!to_send)
+			goto out;
+
+		drops = cnt - to_send;
+	}
+  

[ ... ]
  

quoted

 static void bq_enqueue(struct net_device *dev, struct xdp_frame *xdpf,
-		       struct net_device *dev_rx)
+		       struct net_device *dev_rx, struct bpf_prog *xdp_prog)
 {
 	struct list_head *flush_list = this_cpu_ptr(&dev_flush_list);
 	struct xdp_dev_bulk_queue *bq = this_cpu_ptr(dev->xdp_bulkq);

@@ -412,18 +466,22 @@ static void bq_enqueue(struct net_device *dev, struct xdp_frame *xdpf,
 	/* Ingress dev_rx will be the same for all xdp_frame's in
 	 * bulk_queue, because bq stored per-CPU and must be flushed
 	 * from net_device drivers NAPI func end.
+	 *
+	 * Do the same with xdp_prog and flush_list since these fields
+	 * are only ever modified together.
 	 */
-	if (!bq->dev_rx)
+	if (!bq->dev_rx) {
 		bq->dev_rx = dev_rx;
+		bq->xdp_prog = xdp_prog;  

bp->xdp_prog is assigned here and could be used later in bq_xmit_all().
How is bq->xdp_prog protected? Are they all under one rcu_read_lock()?
It is not very obvious after taking a quick look at xdp_do_flush[_map].

e.g. what if the devmap elem gets deleted.  

Jesper knows better than me. From my veiw, based on the description of
__dev_flush():

On devmap tear down we ensure the flush list is empty before completing to
ensure all flush operations have completed. When drivers update the bpf
program they may need to ensure any flush ops are also complete.  

AFAICT, the bq->xdp_prog is not from the dev. It is from a devmap's elem.

quoted

Yeah, drivers call xdp_do_flush() before exiting their NAPI poll loop,
which also runs under one big rcu_read_lock(). So the storage in the
bulk queue is quite temporary, it's just used for bulking to increase
performance :)  

I am missing the one big rcu_read_lock() part.  For example, in i40e_txrx.c,
i40e_run_xdp() has its own rcu_read_lock/unlock().  dst->xdp_prog used to run
in i40e_run_xdp() and it is fine.

In this patch, dst->xdp_prog is run outside of i40e_run_xdp() where the
rcu_read_unlock() has already done.  It is now run in xdp_do_flush_map().
or I missed the big rcu_read_lock() in i40e_napi_poll()?

I do see the big rcu_read_lock() in mlx5e_napi_poll().

I believed/assumed xdp_do_flush_map() was already protected under an
rcu_read_lock.  As the devmap and cpumap, which get called via
__dev_flush() and __cpu_map_flush(), have multiple RCU objects that we
are operating on.

What other rcu objects it is using during flush?

quoted

Perhaps it is a bug in i40e?

A quick look into ixgbe falls into the same bucket.
didn't look at other drivers though.

quoted

We are running in softirq in NAPI context, when xdp_do_flush_map() is
call, which I think means that this CPU will not go-through a RCU grace
period before we exit softirq, so in-practice it should be safe.

Yup, this seems to be correct: rcu_softirq_qs() is only called between
full invocations of the softirq handler, which for networking is
net_rx_action(), and so translates into full NAPI poll cycles.

I don't know enough to comment on the rcu/softirq part, may be someone
can chime in.  There is also a recent napi_threaded_poll().

If it is the case, then some of the existing rcu_read_lock() is unnecessary?
At least, it sounds incorrect to only make an exception here while keeping
other rcu_read_lock() as-is.