Re: [PATCH net 6/6] net/sched: qdisc_destroy() old ingress and clsact Qdiscs before grafting
From: Peilin Ye <hidden>
Date: 2023-05-11 20:40:25
Also in:
lkml
Subsystem:
networking [general], the rest · Maintainers:
"David S. Miller", Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, Linus Torvalds
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 04:15:59PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
My thinking was to make sure that dev->miniq_* pointers always point to one of the miniqs of the currently attached qdisc. Right now, on a quick look, those pointers are not initialized during initial graft, only when first filter is added, and may be cleared when filters are removed. But I don't think that's strictly required, miniq with no filters should be fine.
Ah, I see, thanks for explaining, I didn't think of that. Looking at sch_handle_ingress() BTW, currently mini Qdisc stats aren't being updated (mini_qdisc_bstats_cpu_update()) if there's no filters, is this intended? Should I keep this behavior by:
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 735096d42c1d..9016481377e0 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c@@ -5116,7 +5116,7 @@ sch_handle_ingress(struct sk_buff *skb, struct packet_type **pt_prev, int *ret, * that are not configured with an ingress qdisc will bail * out here. */ - if (!miniq) + if (!miniq || !miniq->filter_list) return skb; if (*pt_prev) {
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 04:15:59PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2023 13:11:19 -0700 Peilin Ye wrote:quoted
On Fri, 5 May 2023 17:16:10 -0700 Peilin Ye wrote:quoted
Thread 1 A's refcnt Thread 2 RTM_NEWQDISC (A, RTNL-locked) qdisc_create(A) 1 qdisc_graft(A) 9 RTM_NEWTFILTER (X, RTNL-lockless) __tcf_qdisc_find(A) 10 tcf_chain0_head_change(A) mini_qdisc_pair_swap(A) (1st) | | RTM_NEWQDISC (B, RTNL-locked) RCU 2 qdisc_graft(B) | 1 notify_and_destroy(A) | tcf_block_release(A) 0 RTM_NEWTFILTER (Y, RTNL-lockless) qdisc_destroy(A) tcf_chain0_head_change(B) tcf_chain0_head_change_cb_del(A) mini_qdisc_pair_swap(B) (2nd) mini_qdisc_pair_swap(A) (3rd) | ... ...Looking at the code, I think there is no guarantee that (1st) cannot happen after (2nd), although unlikely? Can RTNL-lockless RTM_NEWTFILTER handlers get preempted?Right, we need qdisc_graft(B) to update the appropriate dev pointer to point to b1. With that the ordering should not matter. Probably using the ->attach() callback?
->attach() is later than dev_graft_qdisc(). We should get ready for concurrent filter requests (i.e. have dev pointer pointing to b1) before grafting (publishing) B. Also currently qdisc_graft() doesn't call ->attach() for ingress and clsact Qdiscs. But I see your point, thanks for the suggestion! I'll try ->init() and create v2. Thanks, Peilin Ye