Re: [patch net-next 0/3] net/sched: Improve getting objects by indexes

From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
To: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	"Chris Mi" <chrism@mellanox.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: lucho@ionkov.net, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com,
	snitzer@redhat.com, wsa@the-dreams.de, markb@mellanox.com,
	tom.leiming@gmail.com, stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de,
	zhi.a.wang@intel.com, nsekhar@ti.com,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, bfields@fieldses.org,
	linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org,
	jinpu.wang@profitbricks.com, pshelar@ovn.org,
	sumit.semwal@linaro.org, AlexBin.Xie@amd.com,
	david1.zhou@amd.com, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	maximlevitsky@gmail.com, sudarsana.kalluru@qlogic.com,
	marek.vasut@gmail.com, linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.net,
	dtwlin@gmail.com, michel.daenzer@amd.com, dledford@redhat.com,
	tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
	longman@redhat.com, niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com,
	philipp.reisner@linbit.com, shli@kernel.org, linux@roeck-us.net,
	ohad@wizery.com, pmladek@suse.com,
	dick.kennedy@broadcom.comlinux-
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 0/3] net/sched: Improve getting objects by indexes
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:19:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <150287519355.15499.3124883464555211520@mail.alporthouse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <144b87a3-bbe4-a194-ed83-e54840d7c7c2@amd.com>

Quoting Christian König (2017-08-16 08:49:07)
> Am 16.08.2017 um 04:12 schrieb Chris Mi:
> > Using current TC code, it is very slow to insert a lot of rules.
> >
> > In order to improve the rules update rate in TC,
> > we introduced the following two changes:
> >          1) changed cls_flower to use IDR to manage the filters.
> >          2) changed all act_xxx modules to use IDR instead of
> >             a small hash table
> >
> > But IDR has a limitation that it uses int. TC handle uses u32.
> > To make sure there is no regression, we also changed IDR to use
> > unsigned long. All clients of IDR are changed to use new IDR API.
> 
> WOW, wait a second. The idr change is touching a lot of drivers and to 
> be honest doesn't looks correct at all.
> 
> Just look at the first chunk of your modification:
> > @@ -998,8 +999,9 @@ int bsg_register_queue(struct request_queue *q, struct device *parent,
> >   
> >       mutex_lock(&bsg_mutex);
> >   
> > -     ret = idr_alloc(&bsg_minor_idr, bcd, 0, BSG_MAX_DEVS, GFP_KERNEL);
> > -     if (ret < 0) {
> > +     ret = idr_alloc(&bsg_minor_idr, bcd, &idr_index, 0, BSG_MAX_DEVS,
> > +                     GFP_KERNEL);
> > +     if (ret) {
> >               if (ret == -ENOSPC) {
> >                       printk(KERN_ERR "bsg: too many bsg devices\n");
> >                       ret = -EINVAL;
> The condition "if (ret)" will now always be true after the first 
> allocation and so we always run into the error handling after that.

ret is now purely the error code, so it doesn't look that suspicious.

> I've never read the bsg code before, but that's certainly not correct. 
> And that incorrect pattern repeats over and over again in this code.
> 
> Apart from that why the heck do you want to allocate more than 1<<31 
> handles?

And more to the point, arbitrarily changing the maximum to ULONG_MAX
where the ABI only supports U32_MAX is dangerous. Unless you do the
analysis otherwise, you have to replace all the end=0 with end=INT_MAX
to maintain existing behaviour.
-Chris

_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k