Re: [PATCH v1] neighbour: Don't let neigh_forced_gc() disable preemption for long

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 1:10 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 9:39 AM Judy Hsiao <judyhsiao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > We are seeing cases where neigh_cleanup_and_release() is called by
> > neigh_forced_gc() many times in a row with preemption turned off.
> > When running on a low powered CPU at a low CPU frequency, this has
> > been measured to keep preemption off for ~10 ms. That's not great on a
> > system with HZ=1000 which expects tasks to be able to schedule in
> > with ~1ms latency.
>
> This will not work in general, because this code runs with BH blocked.
>
> jiffies will stay untouched for many more ms on systems with only one CPU.
>
> I would rather not rely on jiffies here but ktime_get_ns() [1]
>
> Also if we break the loop based on time, we might be unable to purge
> the last elements in gc_list.
> We might need to use a second list to make sure to cycle over all
> elements eventually.
>
>
> [1]
> diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
> index df81c1f0a57047e176b7c7e4809d2dae59ba6be5..e2340e6b07735db8cf6e75d23ef09bb4b0db53b4
> 100644
> --- a/net/core/neighbour.c
> +++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
> @@ -253,9 +253,11 @@ static int neigh_forced_gc(struct neigh_table *tbl)
>  {
>         int max_clean = atomic_read(&tbl->gc_entries) -
>                         READ_ONCE(tbl->gc_thresh2);
> +       u64 tmax = ktime_get_ns() + NSEC_PER_MSEC;
>         unsigned long tref = jiffies - 5 * HZ;
>         struct neighbour *n, *tmp;
>         int shrunk = 0;
> +       int loop = 0;
>
>         NEIGH_CACHE_STAT_INC(tbl, forced_gc_runs);
>
> @@ -279,10 +281,16 @@ static int neigh_forced_gc(struct neigh_table *tbl)
>                         if (shrunk >= max_clean)
>                                 break;
>                 }
> +               if (++loop == 16) {
> +                       if (ktime_get_ns() > tmax)
> +                               goto unlock;
> +                       loop = 0;
> +               }
>         }
>
>         WRITE_ONCE(tbl->last_flush, jiffies);
>
> +unlock:
>         write_unlock_bh(&tbl->lock);

I'm curious what the plan here is. Your patch looks OK to me and I
could give it a weak Reviewed-by, but I don't know the code well
enough to know if we also need to address your second comment that we
need to "use a second list to make sure to cycle over all elements
eventually". Is that something you'd expect to get resolved before
landing?

Thanks! :-)

-Doug