Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] ppp: convert rlock to rwlock to improve RX concurrency
Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> Thu, 26 Jun 2025 23:44:18 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ppp,gmane.linux.network,gmane.linux.kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CANn89i+GO3jSDs94SaqvC8FvO9uv4Jyn_Q0W752QcvRSPLnzcQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 9:00 PM Qingfang Deng <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 12:23 AM Guillaume Nault <[email protected]> wrote: > > That doesn't look right. Several PPP Rx features are stateful > > (multilink, compression, etc.) and the current implementations > > currently don't take any precaution when updating the shared states. > > > > For example, see how bsd_decompress() (in bsd_comp.c) updates db->* > > fields all over the place. This db variable comes from ppp->rc_state, > > which is passed as parameter of the ppp->rcomp->decompress() call in > > ppp_decompress_frame(). > > > > I think a lot of work would be needed before we could allow > > ppp_do_recv() to run concurrently on the same struct ppp. > > Right. I think we can grab a write lock where it updates struct ppp. tldr: network maintainers do not want rwlock back. If you really care about concurrency, do not use rwlock, because it is more expensive than a spinlock and very problematic. Instead use RCU for readers, and spinlock for the parts needing exclusion. Adding rwlock in network fast path is almost always a very bad choice. Take a look at commit 0daf07e527095e6 for gory details.