Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] softirq: Drop the warning from do_softirq_post_smp_call_flush().
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hidden>
Date: 2023-08-16 21:04:10
Also in:
lkml
On 16/08/2023 17.15, Yan Zhai wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 9:49 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 15/08/2023 14.08, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:quoted
On 14/08/2023 11.35, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:quoted
This is an undesired situation and it has been attempted to avoid the situation in which ksoftirqd becomes scheduled. This changed since commit d15121be74856 ("Revert "softirq: Let ksoftirqd do its job"") and now a threaded interrupt handler will handle soft interrupts at its end even if ksoftirqd is pending. That means that they will be processed in the context in which they were raised.$ git describe --contains d15121be74856 v6.5-rc1~232^2~4 That revert basically removes the "overload" protection that was added to cope with DDoS situations in Aug 2016 (Cc. Cloudflare). As described in https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/4cd13c21b207 ("softirq: Let ksoftirqd do its job") in UDP overload situations when UDP socket receiver runs on same CPU as ksoftirqd it "falls-off-an-edge" and almost doesn't process packets (because softirq steals CPU/sched time from UDP pid). Warning Cloudflare (Cc) as this might affect their production use-cases, and I recommend getting involved to evaluate the effect of these changes.I did some testing on net-next (with commit d15121be74856 ("Revert "softirq: Let ksoftirqd do its job"") using UDP pktgen + udp_sink. And I observe the old overload issue occur again, where userspace process (udp_sink) process very few packets when running on *same* CPU as the NAPI-RX/IRQ processing. The perf report "comm" clearly shows that NAPI runs in the context of the "udp_sink" process, stealing its sched time. (Same CPU around 3Kpps and diff CPU 1722Kpps, see details below). What happens are that NAPI takes 64 packets and queue them to the udp_sink process *socket*, the udp_sink process *wakeup* process 1 packet from socket queue and on exit (__local_bh_enable_ip) runs softirq that starts NAPI (to again process 64 packets... repeat).I think there are two scenarios to consider:
>
1. Actual DoS scenario. In this case, we would drop DoS packets through XDP, which might actually relieve the stress. According to Marek's blog XDP can indeed drop 10M pps [1] so it might not steal too much time. This is also something I would like to validate again since
Yes, using XDP to drop packet will/should relieve the stress, as it basically can discard some of the 64 packets processed by NAPI vs the 1 packet received by userspace (that re-trigger NAPI), giving a better balance.
I cannot tell if those tests were performed before or after the reverted commit.
Marek's tests will likely contain the patch 4cd13c21b207 ("softirq: Let
ksoftirqd do its job") as blog is from 2018 and patch from 2016, but
shouldn't matter much.
2. Legit elephant flows (so it should not be just dropped). This one is closer to what you tested above, and it is a much harder issue since packets are legit and should not be dropped early at XDP. Let the scheduler move affected processes away seems to be the non-optimal but straight answer for now. However, I suspect this would impose an overload issue for those programmed with RFS or ARFS, since flows would "follow" the processes. They probably have to force threaded NAPI for tuning.
True, this is the case I don't know how to solve. For UDP packets it is NOT optimal to let the process "follow"/run on the NAPI-RX CPU. For TCP traffic it is faster to run on same CPU, which could be related to GRO effect, or simply that tcp_recvmsg gets a stream of data (before it invokes __local_bh_enable_ip causing do_softirq). I have also tested with netperf UDP packets[2] in a scenario that doesn't cause "overload" and CPU have idle cycles. When UDP-netserver is running on same CPU as NAPI then I see approx 38% (82020/216362) UdpRcvbufErrors [3] (and separate CPUs 2.8%). Sure, I could increase buffer size, but the point is NAPI can enqueue 64 packet and UDP receiver dequeue 1 packet. This reminded me that kernel have a recvmmsg (extra "m") syscall for multiple packets. I tested this (as udop_sink have support), but no luck. This is because internally in the kernel (do_recvmmsg) is just a loop over ___sys_recvmsg/__skb_recv_udp, which have a BH-spinlock per packet that invokes __local_bh_enable_ip/do_softirq. I guess, we/netdev could fix recvmmsg() to bulk-dequeue from socket queue (BH-socket unlock is triggering __local_bh_enable_ip/do_softirq) and then have a solution for UDP(?). [2] netperf -H 198.18.1.1 -D1 -l 1200 -t UDP_STREAM -T 0,0 -- -m 1472 -N -n [3] $ nstat -n && sleep 1 && nstat #kernel IpInReceives 216362 0.0 IpInDelivers 216354 0.0 UdpInDatagrams 134356 0.0 UdpInErrors 82020 0.0 UdpRcvbufErrors 82020 0.0 IpExtInOctets 324600000 0.0 IpExtInNoECTPkts 216400 0.0
[1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-to-drop-10-million-packets/quoted
quoted
I do realize/acknowledge that the reverted patch caused other latency issues, given it was a "big-hammer" approach affecting other softirq processing (as can be seen by e.g. the watchdog fixes patches). Thus, the revert makes sense, but how to regain the "overload" protection such that RX networking cannot starve processes reading from the socket? (is this what Sebastian's patchset does?)I'm no expert in sched / softirq area of the kernel, but I'm willing to help out testing different solution that can regain the "overload" protection e.g. avoid packet processing "falls-of-an-edge" (and thus opens the kernel to be DDoS'ed easily). Is this what Sebastian's patchset does?quoted
Thread link for people Cc'ed: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230814093528.117342-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de/#r (local)--Jesper (some testlab results below) [udp_sink] https://github.com/netoptimizer/network-testing/blob/master/src/udp_sink.c When udp_sink runs on same CPU and NAPI/softirq - UdpInDatagrams: 2,948 packets/sec $ nstat -n && sleep 1 && nstat #kernel IpInReceives 2831056 0.0 IpInDelivers 2831053 0.0 UdpInDatagrams 2948 0.0 UdpInErrors 2828118 0.0 UdpRcvbufErrors 2828118 0.0 IpExtInOctets 130206496 0.0 IpExtInNoECTPkts 2830576 0.0 When udp_sink runs on another CPU than NAPI-RX. - UdpInDatagrams: 1,722,307 pps $ nstat -n && sleep 1 && nstat #kernel IpInReceives 2318560 0.0 IpInDelivers 2318562 0.0 UdpInDatagrams 1722307 0.0 UdpInErrors 596280 0.0 UdpRcvbufErrors 596280 0.0 IpExtInOctets 106634256 0.0 IpExtInNoECTPkts 2318136 0.0