Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] page_pool: fix timing for checking and disabling napi_local
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Date: 2024-10-01 11:30:25
Also in:
lkml
On 9/25/24 09:57, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
page_pool page may be freed from skb_defer_free_flush() to softirq context, it may cause concurrent access problem for pool->alloc cache due to the below time window, as below, both CPU0 and CPU1 may access the pool->alloc cache concurrently in page_pool_empty_alloc_cache_once() and page_pool_recycle_in_cache(): CPU 0 CPU1 page_pool_destroy() skb_defer_free_flush() . . . page_pool_put_unrefed_page() . . . allow_direct = page_pool_napi_local() . . page_pool_disable_direct_recycling() . . . page_pool_empty_alloc_cache_once() page_pool_recycle_in_cache() Use rcu mechanism to avoid the above concurrent access problem. Note, the above was found during code reviewing on how to fix the problem in [1]. 1. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8067f204-1380-4d37-8ffd-007fc6f26738@kernel.org/T/ (local) Fixes: dd64b232deb8 ("page_pool: unlink from napi during destroy") Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <redacted> CC: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com> --- net/core/page_pool.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)diff --git a/net/core/page_pool.c b/net/core/page_pool.c index a813d30d2135..bec6e717cd22 100644 --- a/net/core/page_pool.c +++ b/net/core/page_pool.c@@ -818,8 +818,17 @@ static bool page_pool_napi_local(const struct page_pool *pool) void page_pool_put_unrefed_netmem(struct page_pool *pool, netmem_ref netmem, unsigned int dma_sync_size, bool allow_direct) { - if (!allow_direct) + bool allow_direct_orig = allow_direct; + + /* page_pool_put_unrefed_netmem() is not supposed to be called with + * allow_direct being true after page_pool_destroy() is called, so + * the allow_direct being true case doesn't need synchronization. + */ + DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(allow_direct && pool->destroy_cnt); + if (!allow_direct_orig) { + rcu_read_lock(); allow_direct = page_pool_napi_local(pool); + } netmem = __page_pool_put_page(pool, netmem, dma_sync_size, allow_direct);@@ -828,6 +837,9 @@ void page_pool_put_unrefed_netmem(struct page_pool *pool, netmem_ref netmem, recycle_stat_inc(pool, ring_full); page_pool_return_page(pool, netmem); } + + if (!allow_direct_orig) + rcu_read_unlock();
What about always acquiring the rcu lock? would that impact performances negatively? If not, I think it's preferable, as it would make static checker happy.
} EXPORT_SYMBOL(page_pool_put_unrefed_netmem);
[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -1121,6 +1140,12 @@ void page_pool_destroy(struct page_pool *pool) return; page_pool_disable_direct_recycling(pool); + + /* Wait for the freeing side see the disabling direct recycling setting + * to avoid the concurrent access to the pool->alloc cache. + */ + synchronize_rcu();
When turning on/off a device with a lot of queues, the above could introduce a lot of long waits under the RTNL lock, right? What about moving the trailing of this function in a separate helper and use call_rcu() instead? Thanks! Paolo
+ page_pool_free_frag(pool); if (!page_pool_release(pool))