Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 07/10] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Track bridge mdb objects

From: Vladimir Oltean
Date: Mon Apr 29 2024 - 21:00:06 EST


On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 06:07:25PM -0400, Joseph Huang wrote:
> Something like this (some layers omitted for brevity)?
>
> +br_iterator
> | for each mdb
> | _br_switchdev_mdb_notify
> rtnl_lock | without F_DEFER flag
> | | |
> +switchdev_port_attr_set_deferred | +switchdev_port_obj_notify
> | | |
> +dsa_port_mrouter | +dsa_user_port_obj_a/d
> | | |
> +mv88e6xxx_port_mrouter----------+ +mv88e6xxx_port_obj_a/d
> |
> +--------------------------------------+
> |
> rtnl_unlock

At a _very_ superficial glance, I don't think you are properly
accounting for the fact that even with rtnl_lock() held, there are still
SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_MDB events which may be pending on the switchdev
chain. Without a switchdev_deferred_process() flush call, you won't be
getting rid of them, so when you rtnl_unlock(), they will still run.

Even worse, holding rtnl_lock() will not stop the bridge multicast layer
from modifying its br->mdb_list; only br->multicast_lock will.

So you may be better off also acquiring br->multicast_lock, and
notifying the MDB entries to the switchdev chain _with_the F_DEFER flag.

> Note that on the system I tested, each register read/write takes about 100us
> to complete. For 100's of mdb groups, this would mean that we will be
> holding rtnl lock for 10's of ms. I don't know if it's considered too long.

Not sure how this is going to be any better if the iteration over MDB
entries is done 100% in the driver, though - since its hook,
dsa_port_mrouter(), runs entirely under rtnl_lock().

Anyway, with the SWITCHDEV_F_DEFER flag, maybe the mdb object
notifications can be made to run by switchdev only a few at a time, to
give the network stack time to do other things as well.