diff mbox series

[v14,2/8] net: introduce napi_busy_loop_rcu()

Message ID 20230605212009.1992313-3-shr@devkernel.io (mailing list archive)
State New
Headers show
Series io_uring: add napi busy polling support | expand

Commit Message

Stefan Roesch June 5, 2023, 9:20 p.m. UTC
This introduces the napi_busy_loop_rcu() function. If the caller of
napi_busy_loop() function is also taking the rcu read lock, it is possible
that napi_busy_loop() is releasing the read lock if it invokes schedule.
However the caller is expecting that the rcu read lock is not released
until the function completes. This new function avoids that problem. It
expects that the caller MUST hold the rcu_read_lock while calling this
function.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Roesch <shr@devkernel.io>
---
 include/net/busy_poll.h |  4 ++++
 net/core/dev.c          | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+)

Comments

Simon Horman June 6, 2023, 10:10 a.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 02:20:03PM -0700, Stefan Roesch wrote:
> This introduces the napi_busy_loop_rcu() function. If the caller of
> napi_busy_loop() function is also taking the rcu read lock, it is possible
> that napi_busy_loop() is releasing the read lock if it invokes schedule.
> However the caller is expecting that the rcu read lock is not released
> until the function completes. This new function avoids that problem. It
> expects that the caller MUST hold the rcu_read_lock while calling this
> function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Roesch <shr@devkernel.io>

Hi Stefan,

some minor nits from my side, which you may
want to consider if you need to spin a v15 for some reason.

...

> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index f4677aa20f84..fcd4a6a70646 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -6213,6 +6213,37 @@ static inline void __napi_busy_poll(struct napi_busy_poll_ctx *ctx,
>  				LINUX_MIB_BUSYPOLLRXPACKETS, work);
>  	local_bh_enable();
>  }
> +
> +/*
> + * Warning: can exit without calling need_resched().
> + */

For historical reasons, multi-line comments in Networking code are like
this.

/* Something
 * more
 */

Though I notice that dev.c doesn't follow this too closely,
perhaps for other historical reasons.

Anyway, in this case I'd suggest a single like comment.
Unless there is something more to say.

/* Warning: can exit without calling need_resched(). */

> +void napi_busy_loop_rcu(unsigned int napi_id,
> +		    bool (*loop_end)(void *, unsigned long),
> +		    void *loop_end_arg, bool prefer_busy_poll, u16 budget)

The indentation of the above two likes should align with the inside
of the opening parentheses.

void napi_busy_loop_rcu(unsigned int napi_id,
			bool (*loop_end)(void *, unsigned long),
			void *loop_end_arg, bool prefer_busy_poll, u16 budget)

...
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/include/net/busy_poll.h b/include/net/busy_poll.h
index f90f0021f5f2..622623f5740e 100644
--- a/include/net/busy_poll.h
+++ b/include/net/busy_poll.h
@@ -47,6 +47,10 @@  void napi_busy_loop(unsigned int napi_id,
 		    bool (*loop_end)(void *, unsigned long),
 		    void *loop_end_arg, bool prefer_busy_poll, u16 budget);
 
+void napi_busy_loop_rcu(unsigned int napi_id,
+			bool (*loop_end)(void *, unsigned long),
+			void *loop_end_arg, bool prefer_busy_poll, u16 budget);
+
 #else /* CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL */
 static inline unsigned long net_busy_loop_on(void)
 {
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index f4677aa20f84..fcd4a6a70646 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -6213,6 +6213,37 @@  static inline void __napi_busy_poll(struct napi_busy_poll_ctx *ctx,
 				LINUX_MIB_BUSYPOLLRXPACKETS, work);
 	local_bh_enable();
 }
+
+/*
+ * Warning: can exit without calling need_resched().
+ */
+void napi_busy_loop_rcu(unsigned int napi_id,
+		    bool (*loop_end)(void *, unsigned long),
+		    void *loop_end_arg, bool prefer_busy_poll, u16 budget)
+{
+	unsigned long start_time = loop_end ? busy_loop_current_time() : 0;
+	struct napi_busy_poll_ctx ctx = {};
+
+	ctx.napi = napi_by_id(napi_id);
+	if (!ctx.napi)
+		return;
+
+	preempt_disable();
+	for (;;) {
+		__napi_busy_poll(&ctx, prefer_busy_poll, budget);
+
+		if (!loop_end || loop_end(loop_end_arg, start_time))
+			break;
+		if (unlikely(need_resched()))
+			break;
+
+		cpu_relax();
+	}
+	if (ctx.napi_poll)
+		busy_poll_stop(ctx.napi, ctx.have_poll_lock, prefer_busy_poll, budget);
+	preempt_enable();
+}
+
 void napi_busy_loop(unsigned int napi_id,
 		    bool (*loop_end)(void *, unsigned long),
 		    void *loop_end_arg, bool prefer_busy_poll, u16 budget)