On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 15:49 +0200, John Kacur wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Index: linux-2.6.26-rt1/net/core/sock.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.26-rt1.orig/net/core/sock.c
>> +++ linux-2.6.26-rt1/net/core/sock.c
>> @@ -1986,11 +1986,12 @@ static __init int net_inuse_init(void)
>>
>> core_initcall(net_inuse_init);
>> #else
>> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct prot_inuse, prot_inuse);
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_LOCKED(struct prot_inuse, prot_inuse);
>>
>> void sock_prot_inuse_add(struct net *net, struct proto *prot, int val)
>> {
>> - __get_cpu_var(prot_inuse).val[prot->inuse_idx] += val;
>> + int cpu = 0;
>> + __get_cpu_var_locked(prot_inuse, cpu).val[prot->inuse_idx] += val;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sock_prot_inuse_add);
>>
>> @@ -2000,7 +2001,7 @@ int sock_prot_inuse_get(struct net *net,
>> int res = 0;
>>
>> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
>> - res += per_cpu(prot_inuse, cpu).val[idx];
>> + res += per_cpu_var_locked(prot_inuse, cpu).val[idx];
>>
>> return res >= 0 ? res : 0;
>> }
>
> This doesn't look good. You declare it as a PER_CPU_LOCKED, but then
> never use the extra lock to synchronize data.
>
> Given that sock_proc_inuse_get() is a racy read anyway, the 'right' fix
> would be to do something like:
>
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index 91f8bbc..5a8ace4 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -1941,8 +1941,9 @@ static DECLARE_BITMAP(proto_inuse_idx, PROTO_INUSE_NR);
> #ifdef CONFIG_NET_NS
> void sock_prot_inuse_add(struct net *net, struct proto *prot, int val)
> {
> - int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + int cpu = get_cpu();
> per_cpu_ptr(net->core.inuse, cpu)->val[prot->inuse_idx] += val;
> + put_cpu();
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sock_prot_inuse_add);
>
> @@ -1988,7 +1989,9 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct prot_inuse, prot_inuse);
>
> void sock_prot_inuse_add(struct net *net, struct proto *prot, int val)
> {
> - __get_cpu_var(prot_inuse).val[prot->inuse_idx] += val;
> + int cpu = get_cpu();
> + per_cpu(prot_inuse, cpu).val[prot->inuse_idx] += val;
> + put_cpu();
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sock_prot_inuse_add);
>
> This disables preemption, but only for a very short time - so it doesn't
> hurt the preempt-latency.
>
> The alternative is to take a lock, do the inc, and drop the lock again,
> which is much more expensive.
>
>
Cool, thanks for the quick feedback. What kind of criteria are used to
decide between disabling preemption for a short time, or using the
more expensive lock?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
