Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/5] Make SWITCHDEV_FDB_{ADD,DEL}_TO_DEVICE blocking
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-22 09:12:18
On 22/08/2021 09:48, Ido Schimmel wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 02:36:26AM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:quoted
On 20/08/2021 20:06, Vladimir Oltean wrote:quoted
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 07:09:18PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:quoted
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 12:37:23PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:quoted
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 12:16:10PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:quoted
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 07:07:18PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:quoted
Problem statement: Any time a driver needs to create a private association between a bridge upper interface and use that association within its SWITCHDEV_FDB_{ADD,DEL}_TO_DEVICE handler, we have an issue with FDB entries deleted by the bridge when the port leaves. The issue is that all switchdev drivers schedule a work item to have sleepable context, and that work item can be actually scheduled after the port has left the bridge, which means the association might have already been broken by the time the scheduled FDB work item attempts to use it.This is handled in mlxsw by telling the device to flush the FDB entries pointing to the {port, FID} when the VLAN is deleted (synchronously).Again, central solution vs mlxsw solution.Again, a solution is forced on everyone regardless if it benefits them or not. List is bombarded with version after version until patches are applied. *EXHAUSTING*.So if I replace "bombarded" with a more neutral word, isn't that how it's done though? What would you do if you wanted to achieve something but the framework stood in your way? Would you work around it to avoid bombarding the list?quoted
With these patches, except DSA, everyone gets another queue_work() for each FDB entry. In some cases, it completely misses the purpose of the patchset.I also fail to see the point. Patch 3 will have to make things worse before they get better. It is like that in DSA too, and made more reasonable only in the last patch from the series. If I saw any middle-ground way, like keeping the notifiers on the atomic chain for unconverted drivers, I would have done it. But what do you do if more than one driver listens for one event, one driver wants it blocking, the other wants it atomic. Do you make the bridge emit it twice? That's even worse than having one useless queue_work() in some drivers. So if you think I can avoid that please tell me how.Hi, I don't like the double-queuing for each fdb for everyone either, it's forcing them to rework it asap due to inefficiency even though that shouldn't be necessary. In the long run I hope everyone would migrate to such scheme, but perhaps we can do it gradually.The fundamental problem is that these operations need to be deferred in the first place. It would have been much better if user space could get a synchronous feedback. It all stems from the fact that control plane operations need to be done under a spin lock because the shared databases (e.g., FDB, MDB) or states (e.g., STP) that they are updating can also be updated from the data plane in softIRQ.
Right, but changing that, as you've noted below, would require moving the delaying to the bridge, I'd like to avoid that.
I don't have a clean solution to this problem without doing a surgery in the bridge driver. Deferring updates from the data plane using a work queue and converting the spin locks to mutexes. This will also allow us to emit netlink notifications from process context and convert GFP_ATOMIC to GFP_KERNEL. Is that something you consider as acceptable? Does anybody have a better idea?
Moving the delays to the bridge for this purpose does not sound like a good solution, I'd prefer the delaying to be done by the interested third party as in this case rather than the bridge. If there's a solution that avoids delaying and doesn't hurt the software fast-path then of course I'll be ok with that.
quoted
For most drivers this is introducing more work (as in processing) rather than helping them right now, give them the option to convert to it on their own accord or bite the bullet and convert everyone so the change won't affect them, it holds rtnl, it is blocking I don't see why not convert everyone to just execute their otherwise queued work. I'm sure driver maintainers would appreciate such help and would test and review it. You're halfway there already.. Cheers, Nik