On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 02:09:23PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:58:05AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
> >> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:50:28AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
> >> >> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 05:58:47PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> >> >> @@ -767,10 +814,30 @@ int mlx4_en_process_rx_cq(struct net_device
> >> >> >> *dev, struct mlx4_en_cq *cq, int bud
> >> >> >> case XDP_PASS:
> >> >> >> break;
> >> >> >> case XDP_TX:
> >> >> >> + /* Make sure we have one page ready to
> >> >> >> replace this one */
> >> >> >> + npage = NULL;
> >> >> >> + if (!ring->page_cache.index) {
> >> >> >> + npage = mlx4_alloc_page(priv,
> >> >> >> ring,
> >> >> >> + &ndma,
> >> >> >> numa_mem_id(),
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_MEMALLOC);
> >> >> >
> >> >> > did you test this with xdp2 test ?
> >> >> > under what conditions it allocates ?
> >> >> > It looks dangerous from security point of view to do allocations here.
> >> >> > Can it be exploited by an attacker?
> >> >> > we use xdp for ddos and lb and this is fast path.
> >> >> > If 1 out of 100s XDP_TX packets hit this allocation we will have
> >> >> > serious
> >> >> > perf regression.
> >> >> > In general I dont think it's a good idea to penalize x86 in favor of
> >> >> > powerpc.
> >> >> > Can you #ifdef this new code somehow? so we won't have these concerns
> >> >> > on x86?
> >> >>
> >> >> Normal paths would never hit this point really. I wanted to be extra
> >> >> safe, because who knows, some guys could be tempted to set
> >> >> ethtool -G ethX rx 512 tx 8192
> >> >>
> >> >> Before this patch, if you were able to push enough frames in TX ring,
> >> >> you would also eventually be forced to allocate memory, or drop
> >> >> frames...
> >> >
> >> > hmm. not following.
> >> > Into xdp tx queues packets don't come from stack. It can only be via
> >> > xdp_tx.
> >> > So this rx page belongs to driver, not shared with anyone and it only
> >> > needs to
> >> > be put onto tx ring, so I don't understand why driver needs to allocating
> >> > anything here. To refill the rx ring? but why here?
> >>
> >> Because RX ring can be shared, by packets goind to the upper stacks (say
> >> TCP)
> >>
> >> So there is no guarantee that the pages in the quarantine pool have
> >> their page count to 1.
> >>
> >> The normal TX_XDP path will recycle pages in ring->cache_page .
> >>
> >> This is exactly where I pick up a replacement.
> >>
> >> Pages in ring->cache_page have the guarantee to have no other users
> >> than ourself (mlx4 driver)
> >>
> >> You might have not noticed that current mlx4 driver has a lazy refill
> >> of RX ring buffers, that eventually
> >> removes all the pages from RX ring, and we have to recover with this
> >> lazy mlx4_en_recover_from_oom() thing
> >> that will attempt to restart the allocations.
> >>
> >> After my patch, we have the guarantee that the RX ring buffer is
> >> always fully populated.
> >>
> >> When we receive a frame (XDP or not), we drop it if we can not
> >> replenish the RX slot,
> >> in case the oldest page in quarantine is not a recycling candidate and
> >> we can not allocate a new page.
> >
> > Got it. Could you please add above explanation to the commit log,
> > since it's a huge difference vs other drivers.
> > I don't think any other driver in the tree follows this strategy.
>
> sk_buff allocation can fail before considering adding a frag on the
> skb anyway...
>
> Look, all this is completely irrelevant for XDP_TX, since there is no
> allocation at all,
> once ~128 pages have been put into page_cache.
is it once in the beginning only? If so then why that
'if (!ring->page_cache.index)' check is done for every packet?
If every 128 packets then it will cause performance drop.
Since I don't completely understand how your new recycling
logic works, I'm asking you to test this patch with samples/bpf/xdp2
to make sure perf is still good, since it doesn't sound that
you tested with xdp and I don't understand the patch enough to see
the impact and it makes me worried.
> Do you want to prefill this cache when XDP is loaded ?
>
> > I think that's the right call, but it shouldn't be hidden in details.
>
> ring->page_cache contains the pages used by XDP_TX are recycled
> through mlx4_en_rx_recycle()
>
> There is a nice comment there. I did not change this part.
>
> These pages _used_ to be directly taken from mlx4_en_prepare_rx_desc(),
> because there was no page recycling for the normal path.
>
> All my patch does is a generic implementation
> for page recycling, leaving the XDP_TX pages in their own pool,
> because we do not even have to check their page count, adding a cache line
> miss.
>
> So I do have 2 different pools, simply to let XDP_TX path being ultra
> fast, as before.
I agree, but I want to see test results.
> Does not look details to me.
that's exactly why i'm asking to add all that info to commit log.
> > My understanding, since rx and tx napi are scheduled for the same cpu
> > there is a guarantee that during normal invocation they won't race
> > and the only problem is due to mlx4_en_recover_from_oom() that can
> > run rx napi on some random cpu.
>
> Exactly. So under pressure, host will panic :/
the host under pressure will race and may be it will panic. Sure.
I will take such panic any day vs adding spin_locks to the fast path.
If Saeed can fix it without adding spin_locks great, but slowing
down fast path because of one in a million race is no good.
You're using the same arguments when dealing with bugs in tcp stack,
so I can only hold you to the same standard here :)
Frankly if you were not proposing to slowdown xdp with spin_locks
in the other thread, I probably wouldn't be worried about this patch.
