On 1/9/2025 4:37 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 09:26:38AM +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote:
On 1/8/2025 3:14 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 11:40:05AM +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote:
On 1/8/2025 10:46 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 10:47:16AM +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote:
On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 11:33:34AM +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote: >>> Re-locking doesn't look great, glancing at the code I don't see any >>> obvious better workarounds. Easiest fix would be to don't let the >>> drivers sleep in the callbacks and then we can go back to a spin lock. >>> Maybe nvidia people have better ideas, I'm not familiar with this >>> offload. >> >> I don't know how to disable bonding sleeping since we use mutex_lock now. >> Hi Jianbo, do you have any idea? >> > > I think we should allow drivers to sleep in the callbacks. So, maybe it's > better to move driver's xdo_dev_state_delete out of state's spin lock.
I just check the code, xfrm_dev_state_delete() and later dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(x) have too many xfrm_state x checks. Can we really move it out of spin lock from xfrm_state_delete()
I tried to move the mutex lock code to a work queue, but found we need to check (ipsec->xs == xs) in bonding. So we still need xfrm_state x during bond
Maybe I miss something, but why need to hold spin lock. You can keep xfrm state by its refcnt.
Do you mean move the xfrm_dev_state_delete() out of spin lock directly like:
Yes. Not feasible?
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c index 67ca7ac955a3..6881ddeb4360 100644 --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c @@ -766,13 +766,6 @@ int __xfrm_state_delete(struct xfrm_state *x) if (x->encap_sk) sock_put(rcu_dereference_raw(x->encap_sk));
xfrm_dev_state_delete(x);/* All xfrm_state objects are created by xfrm_state_alloc.* The xfrm_state_alloc call gives a reference, and that* is what we are dropping here.*/xfrm_state_put(x); err = 0;@@ -787,8 +780,20 @@ int xfrm_state_delete(struct xfrm_state *x) spin_lock_bh(&x->lock); err = __xfrm_state_delete(x); spin_unlock_bh(&x->lock);
- if (err)
return err;
- return err;
- if (x->km.state == XFRM_STATE_DEAD) {
xfrm_dev_state_delete(x);/* All xfrm_state objects are created by xfrm_state_alloc.* The xfrm_state_alloc call gives a reference, and that* is what we are dropping here.*/xfrm_state_put(x);- }
- return 0; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(xfrm_state_delete);
Then why we need the spin lock in xfrm_state_delete?
No, we don't need. But I am trying to understand what you said in your last email about adding a new lock, or unlocking spin lock in
I *thought* we need the spin lock in xfrm_state_delete(). So to protect xfrm_state,
But not need in bond_ipsec_del_sa() because the state still hold by xfrm_state_hold(), right?
we need a new lock. Although it looks redundant. e.g.
int xfrm_state_delete(struct xfrm_state *x) { int err;
spin_lock_bh(&x->lock); err = __xfrm_state_delete(x); spin_unlock_bh(&x->lock); if (err) return err;another_lock(&x->other_lock) if (x->km.state == XFRM_STATE_DEAD) { xfrm_dev_state_delete(x); xfrm_state_put(x); } another_unlock(&x->other_lock)
return 0;}
bond_ipsec_del_sa(). Anything I missed?
The unlock spin lock in bond_ipsec_del_sa looks like https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Z1vfsAyuxcohT7th@fedora/
Thanks Hangbin