* Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > That way there's no global cacheline bouncing (just the
> > _reading_ of a global cacheline - which will be nicely localized
> > - on NUMA too) - and we will hold at most 1-2 locks at once!
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > __cacheline_aligned DEFINE_RWLOCK(global_wrlock);
> >
> > DEFINE_PER_CPU(rwlock_t local_lock);
> >
> >
> > void local_read_lock(void)
> > {
> > again:
> > read_lock(&per_cpu(local_lock, this_cpu));
> >
> > if (unlikely(!read_can_lock(&global_wrlock))) {
> > read_unlock(&per_cpu(local_lock, this_cpu));
> > /*
> > * Just wait for any global write activity:
> > */
> > read_unlock_wait(&global_wrlock);
> > goto again;
> > }
> > }
>
> Quit trying to be so damn f*cking cool. [...]
You make it quite hard to give reasonable feedback to your code :-/
First you attack me personally here, then - 30 minutes later - in
the next iteration of your patch, you do:
+ /* wait for each other cpu to see new table */
+ for_each_possible_cpu(i)
+ if (i != smp_processor_id()) {
+ xt_info_wrlock(i);
+ xt_info_wrunlock(i);
+ }
... which i have not seen in your previous patch and which looks
awfully similar to the write_lock_wait() based primitive i
suggested.
( Just open-coded in an ugly fashion and slower than a real, proper
wait-unlock would be, because it dirties all those locks
needlessly. )
So you must have agreed with me to a certain degree - i just dont
see that in any of the discussion. (you seem to totally disagree
with me to the level of ridiculing me.) Which makes it hard to
discuss this on a rational basis.
> Your version fails for the case of nested local rules. [...]
Yes, as Eric pointed it out, more than an hour before your reply. I
find the nesting uninteresting (in fact i find it harmful - see my
reply to Eric). If you were only interested in nesting then a plain
old-fashioned rwlock would have done the job.
The detail that is interesting here is how to avoid the global
rwlock cacheline bounce - not the recursion. (the same-CPU recursion
is avoidable via proper design or workaround-able via a counter in
so many ways)
Anyway, i'm back into lurker mode.
Ingo
--
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
