RE: [RFC PATCH] net/tipc: reduce tipc_node lock holding time in tipc_rcv

[xu]

>>Could we please solve the problem mentioned above by adding spinlock(&le->lock)?
>>
>
>No, you cannot do that. As I said before, the link status (including l->state) needs to be protected by node lock.

Why can't use le->lock instead of node's lock to protect it in tipc_link_rcv.

>What I showed you were just 2 use cases (link reset/delete). There are more use cases (netlink, transmit path etc) that need proper locks.

The same. We can also add spin_lock_bh(&le->lock) to protect the link in other places where it changes the
link status in addition to 'reset/delete'. Because using node lock to protect the link in tipc_link_rcv is
really wasting CPU performance.

>
>>For example:
>>
>>(BTW, I have tested it, with this change, enabling RPS based on tipc port can improve 25% of general throughput)
>>
>>diff --git a/net/tipc/node.c b/net/tipc/node.c index 3105abe97bb9..470c272d798e 100644
>>--- a/net/tipc/node.c
>>+++ b/net/tipc/node.c
>>@@ -1079,12 +1079,16 @@ static void tipc_node_link_down(struct tipc_node *n, int bearer_id, bool delete)
>>                __tipc_node_link_down(n, &bearer_id, &xmitq, &maddr);
>>        } else {
>>                /* Defuse pending tipc_node_link_up() */
>>+               spin_lock_bh(&le->lock);
>>                tipc_link_reset(l);
>>+               spin_unlock_bh(&le->lock);
>>                tipc_link_fsm_evt(l, LINK_RESET_EVT);
>>        }
>>        if (delete) {
>>+               spin_lock_bh(&le->lock);
>>                kfree(l);
>>                le->link = NULL;
>>+               spin_unlock_bh(&le->lock);
>>                n->link_cnt--;
>>        }
>>        trace_tipc_node_link_down(n, true, "node link down or deleted!"); @@ -2154,14 +2158,15 @@ void tipc_rcv(struct net *net,
>>struct sk_buff *skb, struct tipc_bearer *b)
>>        /* Receive packet directly if conditions permit */
>>        tipc_node_read_lock(n);
>>        if (likely((n->state == SELF_UP_PEER_UP) && (usr != TUNNEL_PROTOCOL))) {
>>+               tipc_node_read_unlock(n);
>>                spin_lock_bh(&le->lock);
>>                if (le->link) {
>>                        rc = tipc_link_rcv(le->link, skb, &xmitq);
>>                        skb = NULL;
>>                }
>>                spin_unlock_bh(&le->lock);
>>-       }
>>-       tipc_node_read_unlock(n);
>>+       } else
>>+               tipc_node_read_unlock(n);
>>
>>        /* Check/update node state before receiving */
>>        if (unlikely(skb)) {
>>@@ -2169,12 +2174,13 @@ void tipc_rcv(struct net *net, struct sk_buff *skb, struct tipc_bearer *b)
>>                        goto out_node_put;
>>                tipc_node_write_lock(n);
>>                if (tipc_node_check_state(n, skb, bearer_id, &xmitq)) {
>>+                       tipc_node_write_unlock(n);
>>                        if (le->link) {
>>                                rc = tipc_link_rcv(le->link, skb, &xmitq);
>>                                skb = NULL;
>>                        }
>>-               }
>>-               tipc_node_write_unlock(n);
>>+               } else
>>+                       tipc_node_write_unlock(n);
>>        }
>>
>>        if (unlikely(rc & TIPC_LINK_UP_EVT))