diff mbox series

[v1,wl-next,1/3] wifi: wext: Move wext_nlevents to net->gen[].

Message ID 20241014205543.94787-2-kuniyu@amazon.com (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: Johannes Berg
Headers show
Series wifi: wext: Namespacify wireless_nlevent_flush() calls. | expand

Commit Message

Kuniyuki Iwashima Oct. 14, 2024, 8:55 p.m. UTC
CONFIG_WEXT_CORE cannot be built as a module and is enabled in a
generic kernel in major distros.

We will namespacify wireless_nlevent_work that would require yet
another wext-specific field in struct net.

Given wext has already registered its pernet_operations, we can
use struct net_generic for wext-specific storage.

Let's move wext_nlevents to net->gen[].

Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
---
 include/net/net_namespace.h |  3 ---
 net/wireless/wext-core.c    | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

Comments

Johannes Berg Oct. 15, 2024, 6:36 a.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 13:55 -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> CONFIG_WEXT_CORE cannot be built as a module

Isn't that precisely an argument for _not_ using net->gen[] with all the
additional dynamic allocations that implies? I'm not really against
doing this, but it does make the third patch more complex, requiring the
new wext_net->net pointer, and given allocations (rounded up) will take
more space - for something always present - than just going with the
existing scheme?

What's the reason to use net->gen[]?

johannes
Kuniyuki Iwashima Oct. 16, 2024, 12:49 a.m. UTC | #2
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:36:24 +0200
> On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 13:55 -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > CONFIG_WEXT_CORE cannot be built as a module
> 
> Isn't that precisely an argument for _not_ using net->gen[] with all the
> additional dynamic allocations that implies?

Exactly...

Recently I was thinking most of the structs in struct net (except for
first-class citizens like ipv4/ipv6) should use net->gen[] given the
distro kernel enables most configs.

But yes, WEXT is always built-in.


> I'm not really against
> doing this, but it does make the third patch more complex, requiring the
> new wext_net->net pointer,

Right, FWIW, before posting this patch, I checked 5 structs have
a similar pointer.

rdma_dev_net : possible_net_t net
pktgen_net : struct net
netns_ipvs : struct net
bond_net : struct net
afs_net : struct net


> and given allocations (rounded up) will take
> more space - for something always present - than just going with the
> existing scheme?
> 
> What's the reason to use net->gen[]?

Probably because wext_nlevents was just before a cacheline
on my setup ?

$ pahole -EC net vmlinux | grep net_generic -C 30
...
	} wext_nlevents; /*  2536    24 */
	/* --- cacheline 40 boundary (2560 bytes) --- */
	struct net_generic *       gen;                                                  /*  2560     8 */
Johannes Berg Oct. 16, 2024, 8:56 a.m. UTC | #3
+netdev, I think we're starting to discuss more general things :)

On Tue, 2024-10-15 at 17:49 -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:36:24 +0200
> > On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 13:55 -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > > CONFIG_WEXT_CORE cannot be built as a module
> > 
> > Isn't that precisely an argument for _not_ using net->gen[] with all the
> > additional dynamic allocations that implies?
> 
> Exactly...
> 
> Recently I was thinking most of the structs in struct net (except for
> first-class citizens like ipv4/ipv6) should use net->gen[] given the
> distro kernel enables most configs.

Wait I'm confused, to me it seems you're contradicting yourself? :)

If we agree that making it use net->gen[] is more overhead since it
requires additional allocations (which necessarily require more memory
due to alignment etc., but even without that because now you needed
wext_net->net too) ...

Then why do you think more should use net->gen[] if it's built-in?

> But yes, WEXT is always built-in.

I can see an argument for things that aren't always present, obviously,
like bonding and pktgen, but I don't see much of an argument for things
like wext that are either present or not?

> Probably because wext_nlevents was just before a cacheline
> on my setup ?
> 
> $ pahole -EC net vmlinux | grep net_generic -C 30
> ...
> 	} wext_nlevents; /*  2536    24 */
> 	/* --- cacheline 40 boundary (2560 bytes) --- */
> 	struct net_generic *       gen;                                                  /*  2560     8 */

I'd argue that doesn't really mean it makes sense to pull it into
net->gen (where it gets accessed via two indirect pointers)?

That's an argument for reordering things there perhaps, but in struct
net that's probably not too much of an issue unless it shares a
cacheline with something that's used all the time?

johannes
Kuniyuki Iwashima Oct. 16, 2024, 11:58 p.m. UTC | #4
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:56:44 +0200
> +netdev, I think we're starting to discuss more general things :)
> 
> On Tue, 2024-10-15 at 17:49 -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
> > Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:36:24 +0200
> > > On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 13:55 -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > > > CONFIG_WEXT_CORE cannot be built as a module
> > > 
> > > Isn't that precisely an argument for _not_ using net->gen[] with all the
> > > additional dynamic allocations that implies?
> > 
> > Exactly...
> > 
> > Recently I was thinking most of the structs in struct net (except for
> > first-class citizens like ipv4/ipv6) should use net->gen[] given the
> > distro kernel enables most configs.
> 
> Wait I'm confused, to me it seems you're contradicting yourself? :)

Sorry, I meant the above is for module :)

> 
> If we agree that making it use net->gen[] is more overhead since it
> requires additional allocations (which necessarily require more memory
> due to alignment etc., but even without that because now you needed
> wext_net->net too) ...
> 
> Then why do you think more should use net->gen[] if it's built-in?
> 
> > But yes, WEXT is always built-in.
> 
> I can see an argument for things that aren't always present, obviously,
> like bonding and pktgen, but I don't see much of an argument for things
> like wext that are either present or not?
> 
> > Probably because wext_nlevents was just before a cacheline
> > on my setup ?
> > 
> > $ pahole -EC net vmlinux | grep net_generic -C 30
> > ...
> > 	} wext_nlevents; /*  2536    24 */
> > 	/* --- cacheline 40 boundary (2560 bytes) --- */
> > 	struct net_generic *       gen;                                                  /*  2560     8 */
> 
> I'd argue that doesn't really mean it makes sense to pull it into
> net->gen (where it gets accessed via two indirect pointers)?
> 
> That's an argument for reordering things there perhaps, but in struct
> net that's probably not too much of an issue unless it shares a
> cacheline with something that's used all the time?

Yes, avoiding false shareing would be the only reason to use ->gen[]
for builtin.

I'll drop the patch 1 in v2.

Btw, why WEXT cannot be module ?
Johannes Berg Oct. 17, 2024, 8:06 a.m. UTC | #5
On Wed, 2024-10-16 at 16:58 -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> 
> Btw, why WEXT cannot be module ?

TBH, I don't remember well. I feel like I may have tried ~20 years ago,
but hit issues, and just made the built-in parts minimal. Might've been
we didn't have net->gen yet (did we? I don't recall), but I wouldn't be
surprised if there are other issues with it as well with ioctl linkage
and /proc and whatever else it does.

Not sure it's worth trying, WEXT really ought to be on the way out now,
and with WiFi7 (and higher) devices it's completely disabled.



Btw, if you really wanted to, I suspect you _could_ use net->gen[], make
the .size only a pointer size and then allocate the real data only if a
wireless capable device shows up in the namespace? Then that'd actually
be a win (vs. the other discussion we just had above) since wireless
devices are probably almost never in a netns. Not sure you'd be able to
easily free it when the last wifi capable devices leaves a netns, but
that probably also doesn't matter.

I don't know though how much the size of the netns matters for the
scalability issue you have in mind, seems the O(N) time behaviour here
is more problematic than a handful of bytes.

johannes
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/include/net/net_namespace.h b/include/net/net_namespace.h
index 873c0f9fdac6..f720225f7f6d 100644
--- a/include/net/net_namespace.h
+++ b/include/net/net_namespace.h
@@ -150,9 +150,6 @@  struct net {
 #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NF_FLOW_TABLE)
 	struct netns_ft ft;
 #endif
-#endif
-#ifdef CONFIG_WEXT_CORE
-	struct sk_buff_head	wext_nlevents;
 #endif
 	struct net_generic __rcu	*gen;
 
diff --git a/net/wireless/wext-core.c b/net/wireless/wext-core.c
index 3bb04b05c5ce..bfc13e0d9883 100644
--- a/net/wireless/wext-core.c
+++ b/net/wireless/wext-core.c
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ 
 #include <net/netlink.h>
 #include <net/wext.h>
 #include <net/net_namespace.h>
+#include <net/netns/generic.h>
 
 typedef int (*wext_ioctl_func)(struct net_device *, struct iwreq *,
 			       unsigned int, struct iw_request_info *,
@@ -343,6 +344,17 @@  static const int compat_event_type_size[] = {
 
 /* IW event code */
 
+struct wext_net {
+	struct sk_buff_head nlevents;
+};
+
+static int wext_net_id;
+
+static struct wext_net *wext_net(struct net *net)
+{
+	return net_generic(net, wext_net_id);
+}
+
 void wireless_nlevent_flush(void)
 {
 	struct sk_buff *skb;
@@ -350,7 +362,9 @@  void wireless_nlevent_flush(void)
 
 	down_read(&net_rwsem);
 	for_each_net(net) {
-		while ((skb = skb_dequeue(&net->wext_nlevents)))
+		struct wext_net *wnet = wext_net(net);
+
+		while ((skb = skb_dequeue(&wnet->nlevents)))
 			rtnl_notify(skb, net, 0, RTNLGRP_LINK, NULL,
 				    GFP_KERNEL);
 	}
@@ -379,18 +393,25 @@  static struct notifier_block wext_netdev_notifier = {
 
 static int __net_init wext_pernet_init(struct net *net)
 {
-	skb_queue_head_init(&net->wext_nlevents);
+	struct wext_net *wnet = wext_net(net);
+
+	skb_queue_head_init(&wnet->nlevents);
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
 static void __net_exit wext_pernet_exit(struct net *net)
 {
-	skb_queue_purge(&net->wext_nlevents);
+	struct wext_net *wnet = wext_net(net);
+
+	skb_queue_purge(&wnet->nlevents);
 }
 
 static struct pernet_operations wext_pernet_ops = {
 	.init = wext_pernet_init,
 	.exit = wext_pernet_exit,
+	.id = &wext_net_id,
+	.size = sizeof(struct wext_net),
 };
 
 static int __init wireless_nlevent_init(void)
@@ -462,6 +483,7 @@  void wireless_send_event(struct net_device *	dev,
 	int wrqu_off = 0;			/* Offset in wrqu */
 	/* Don't "optimise" the following variable, it will crash */
 	unsigned int	cmd_index;		/* *MUST* be unsigned */
+	struct wext_net *wnet;
 	struct sk_buff *skb;
 	struct nlmsghdr *nlh;
 	struct nlattr *nla;
@@ -632,7 +654,8 @@  void wireless_send_event(struct net_device *	dev,
 
 	skb_shinfo(skb)->frag_list = compskb;
 #endif
-	skb_queue_tail(&dev_net(dev)->wext_nlevents, skb);
+	wnet = wext_net(dev_net(dev));
+	skb_queue_tail(&wnet->nlevents, skb);
 	schedule_work(&wireless_nlevent_work);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(wireless_send_event);