On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:03:08PM +0300, Amir Vadai wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:04:21PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 11:26 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > > >> 1) Currently there are only a few actions using lockless, and they are > > >> questionable, as we already discussed before, there could be some > > >> race condition when you modify an existing action. > > > > > > There is no fundamental issue with a race condition. > > > > For mirred action, maybe. As we already discussed, the more > > complex an action is, the harder to make it lockless in your > > way (that is, not using RCU) > > > > > > > > Sure, there are races, but they have no serious effect. > > > > > > Feel free to send a fix if you really have time to spare. > > > > It's because the code is written by you? > > > > I am surprised how you try to hide your own problem in > > such a way... > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> 2) We need to change the tc action API in order to fully support RCU, > > >> which is what I have been working on these days. I should come up > > >> with something next Monday (if not this weekend). > > >> > > >> So for this patchset, using spinlock is fine, just as many other actions. > > >> I will take care of it later. > > > > > > This is _not_ fine. > > > > > > OK, so where are your patches to make the rest actions > > lockless? > > > > > > > > > > We are in 2016, not in 1995 anymore. > > > > > > > Fair enough, sounds like all actions are already lockless in > > fast path now in 2016, you know this is not true... > > > > > > > We are not adding a spinlock in a hot path unless absolutely needed. > > > > If it is bug-free, yes, I am totally with you. I care about corretness > > more than any performance. > > > > > > > > > > With multi queue NIC, this spinlock is going to hurt performance so much > > > that this action wont be used by any serious user. > > > > We have used mirred action even before you make it lockless. > > > > > > > > > > Here, it is absolutely trivial to use RCU and/or percpu counters. > > > > Sounds like we don't need any API change, why not go ahead > > and try it? Please do teach me how to modify an existing > > action in a lockless way without changing any API (and of course > > needs to be bug-free), I am very happy to learn your "trivial" way > > to fix this, since I don't have any trivial fix. > > > > Please, stop bullsh*t, show me your trivial code. > > Regarding the specific action in this patchset, correct me if I'm wrong, > but I think that the lock could be removed safely. > > When the action is modified during traffic, an existing tcf_enc_metadata > is not changed, but a new metadata is allocated and the pointer is > replaced to point to the new one. > I just need to make sure that when changing an action from 'release' > into 'set' - tcf_enc_metadata will be set before the action type is > changed - change the order of operations and add a memory barrier. > Here is a pseudo code to explain: > > metadata_new = new allocated metadata > metadata_old = t->tcft_enc_metadata >
Oh - I had a typo here: Need to set the metadata and only after that, set the action: t->tcft_enc_metadata = metadata_new wmb() t->tcft_action = encapdecap > t->tcft_action = encapdecap > > /* make sure the compiler won't swap the setting of tcft_action with > * tcft_enc_metadata > */ > wmb() > > t->tcft_enc_metadata = metadata_new > release metadata_old > > > This way, no need for lock between the init() and act() operations. > > Please let me know if you see a problem with this approach. > I will also change the stats to be percpu. > > Thanks, > Amir >
