On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 22:32:10 +1100 David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 11:27:54AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:Yes, I meant, if we pass the FLOW_MAX check, then we can't fail to allocate -- therefore flow_may_alloc() would contain just that check.On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 20:39:50 +1100 David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:Oh, sorry, I thought you were proposing open-coding the check against FLOW_MAX, like it is at the moment. See below for comments on a flow_may_alloc() or similar call.On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 09:33:35AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:Hmm, I don't get the difference in terms of abstraction between checking the return value of flow_alloc() and checking the return value of flow_may_alloc().On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 21:02:19 +1100 David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 07:13:41PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 23:01:17 +1100 > > David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 11:33:04AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 19:25:25 +0100 > > > > Stefano Brivio <sbrivio(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 17:15:49 +1100 > > > > > > David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if we really have to keep track of the number of (non-)entries > > > > > in the free "block", and if we have to be explicit about the two cases. > > > > > > > > > > I'm trying to find out if we can simplify the whole thing with slightly > > > > > different variants, for example: > > > > > > > > So... I think the version with (explicit) blocks has this fundamental > > > > advantage, on deletion: > > > > > > > > > > + flow->f.type = FLOW_TYPE_NONE; > > > > > > + /* Put it back in a length 1 free block, don't attempt to fully reverse > > > > > > + * flow_alloc()s steps. This will get folded together the next time > > > > > > + * flow_defer_handler runs anyway() */ > > > > > > + flow->free.n = 1; > > > > > > + flow->free.next = flow_first_free; > > > > > > + flow_first_free = FLOW_IDX(flow); > > > > > > > > which is doable even without explicit blocks, but much harder to > > > > follow. > > > > > > Remember this is not a general deletion, only a "cancel" of the most > > > recent allocation. > > > > Oh, I thought that was only the case for this series and you would use > > that as actual deletion in another pending series (which I haven't > > finished reviewing yet). > > No. Not allowing deletion of any entry at any time is what I'm > trading off to get both O(1) allocation and (effectively) O(1) > deletion. > > > But now I'm not sure anymore why I was thinking this... > > > > Anyway... do we really need it, then? Can't we just mark the "failed" > > flows as whatever means "closed" for a specific protocol, and clean > > them up later, instead of calling cancel() right away? > > We could, but I'm not sure we want to. For starters, that requires > protocol-specific behaviour whenever we need to back out an allocation > like this. Not a big deal, since that's in protocol specific code > already, but I think it's uglier than calling cancel. > > It also requires that the protocol specific deferred cleanup functions > (e.g. tcp_flow_defer()) handle partially initialised entries. With > 'cancel' we can back out just the initialisation steps we've already > done (because we know where we've failed during init), then remove the > entry. The deferred cleanup function only needs to deal with > "complete" entries. Again, certainly possible, but IMO uglier than > having 'cancel'. Okay, yes, I see now. Another doubt that comes to me now is: if you don't plan to use this alloc_cancel() thing anywhere else, the only reason why you are adding it is to replace the (flow_count >= FLOW_MAX) check with a flow_alloc() version that can fail. But at this point, speaking of ugliness, couldn't we just have a bool flow_may_alloc() { return flow_first_free < FLOW_MAX }; the caller can use to decide to abort earlier? To me it looks so much simpler and more robust.Well, we could, but there are a couple of reasons I don't love it. The first is abstraction: this returns explicit handling of the layout of the table to the protocol specific callers. It's not a huge deal right now, but once we have 4 or 5 protocols doing this, having to change all of them if we make any tiny change to the semantics of flow_first_free isn't great.In both cases the protocol handlers know that there's a table, a function to reserve entries, and that reserving entries might fail... and not much else.Uh.. we can't fail to allocate. We can fail for other reasons.The other issue is that to do this (without a bunch of fairly large and ugly temporaries) means we'd populate at least some of the fields in flow_common before we have officially "allocated" the entry. At that point it becomes a bit fuzzy as to when that allocation really occurs. Is it when we do the FLOW_MAX tesT?I would say yes -- after that we can't fail....I'm saying that we don't actually allocate memory, which means that we can have a simple test (on FLOW_MAX), and then we know that, at least within the handling of a single epoll event, we will be able to allocate memory, without possible races. We couldn't do that with an actual heap allocation because that's out of our control. This is one of the few aspects where using statically allocated memory only could make our lives easier (while in general we need to spend more effort for other things).I mean, we work with rather constrained structures for a number of reasons, which comes with a number of hard problems... let's at least reap the benefits of it?I'm not sure what you're getting at here.But as of this patch flow_alloc() can only fail on the FLOW_MAX check...Yes we can, that's kind of the whole point of this.Is it when we write to f.type? Is it when we update flow_first_free? If we fail somewhere in the middle of that, what steps do we need to reverse?We can't fail in the middle of it, at the moment.Okay, yes, not having contiguous free clusters is probably not a valuable invariant anyway.Of course, if the "allocation" function changes, we might need to change the scheme. But is it really likely? And anyway it's just a few lines in your current version...The cluster of size one from cancel is still a valid free cluster that satisfies all the usual invaraints, it's not "fake". It does mean that we could get two contiguous free clusters, which we wouldn't otherwise.For those reasons I prefer the scheme presented. Fwiw, in an earlier draft I did this differently with a "flow_prealloc()", which was essentially the check against FLOW_MAX, then a later flow_alloc_commit(). I thought it turned out pretty confusing compared to the alloc/cancel approach.The current flow_alloc_cancel() implementation is definitely simple and semantically clear. What worries me a bit is that you would have two different cases for free "blocks" of size one, depending on the order of the events. So if we want to debug something like that and we see a block with size one it might be a failed bind(), so a fake one, or also not: it might be an actual block with size one.The idea is that they'll be merged back together on the next deferred scan, but as noted on a different subthread, that's not currently working and I'll have to fix it.Yes yes that part is clear to me. I don't find it very problematic, or in any way "wrong".By the way, another possibility would be to just go ahead and call socket() and bind(), or accept() the connection from the socket, then if we fail to "allocate" a flow we'll close the socket. That doesn't solve the synchronisation problem entirely but it makes it simpler to handle. Now, a bound socket or an accepted connection is visible to the user which is (I guess) the reason why you want to avoid this, but if we can't open/accept new connections it's getting pretty bad anyway... so should we really care? Actually, calling accept() and then close() on a socket (peer gets RST) is probably a nicer behaviour than letting a peer hang because we ran out of slots.Thinking of multithreading: defining flow_may_alloc() becomes more complicated because the caller can't just assume the "allocation" will succeed (as long as we don't cross an "epoll cycle" or something like that). But we'll probably need some form of locking or userspace RCU giving us barriers around the pair may_alloc() / alloc().For multi-threaded, I really thin we'd want alloc/free semantics, not may_alloc/alloc semantics. We have to change state in some way at "may alloc" time, or something else could try to allocate the same slot. "cancel" semantics also don't make sense here, because we can no longer be confident that the alloc we did above is still the most recent allloc. So a bunch of things would need to change for multi-threading.By "failing alloc()" I mean the alloc/cancel semantics, as opposed to an allocation function that can't fail. There, as you mentioned, we can no longer be confident that the canceled allocation would be the most recent one (which changes the meaning of flow_first_free).If we stick to the failing alloc(), this part is simpler, but the interpretation of flow_first_free and block sizes becomes non-trivial.Again, not sure what you're getting at.> Well, on the other hand, it's all simple enough that we can change it > as needed (for example for multithreading). If we can hope that the new > scheme is reasonably low on bugs and we'll probably never have to guess > why a block has size one, I'm fine with the failing alloc() as well.-- Stefano