Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
>> This version of x_tables (ip/ip6/arp) locking uses a per-cpu
>> recursive lock that can be nested. It is sort of like existing kernel_lock,
>> rwlock_t and even old 2.4 brlock.
>>
>> "Reader" is ip/arp/ip6 tables rule processing which runs per-cpu.
>> It needs to ensure that the rules are not being changed while packet
>> is being processed.
>>
>> "Writer" is used in two cases: first is replacing rules in which case
>> all packets in flight have to be processed before rules are swapped,
>> then counters are read from the old (stale) info. Second case is where
>> counters need to be read on the fly, in this case all CPU's are blocked
>> from further rule processing until values are aggregated.
>>
>> The idea for this came from an earlier version done by Eric Dumazet.
>> Locking is done per-cpu, the fast path locks on the current cpu
>> and updates counters. This reduces the contention of a
>> single reader lock (in 2.6.29) without the delay of synchronize_net()
>> (in 2.6.30-rc2).
>>
>>
>> The mutex that was added for 2.6.30 in xt_table is unnecessary since
>> there already is a mutex for xt[af].mutex that is held.
>>
>> Future optimizations possible:
>> - Lockdep doesn't really handle this well
>> - hot plug CPU case, if kernel is built with large # of CPU's, skip
>> the inactive ones; migrate values when CPU is removed.
>> - reading counters could be incremental by CPU.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>
> I like this version 8 of the patch, as it mixes all ideas we had,
> but have two questions.
>
> Previous netfilter code (and 2.6.30-rc2 one too) disable BH, not only preemption.
>
> I see xt_table_info_lock_all(void) does block BH, so this one is safe.
>
> I let Patrick or other tell us if its safe to run ipt_do_table()
> with preemption disabled but BH enabled, I really dont know.
>
> Also, please dont call this a 'recursive lock', since it is not a general
> recursive lock, as pointed by Linus and Paul.
>
> Second question is about MAX_LOCK_DEPTH
I meant here the ~256 limit we have on preempt_count, not related to LOCKDEP
>
> Why dont use this kind of construct to get rid of this limit ?
>
> +void xt_table_info_lock_all(void)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + local_bh_disable();
>> + for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
>> + struct xt_lock *lock = &per_cpu(xt_info_locks, i);
>> + spin_lock(&lock->lock);
>> + preempt_enable_no_resched();
>> + }
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_table_info_lock_all);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
