Stephen Hemminger a écrit : > In days of old in 2.6.29, netfilter did locketh using a > lock of the reader kind when doing its table business, and do > a writer when with pen in hand like a overworked accountant > did replace the tables. This sucketh and caused the single > lock to fly back and forth like a poor errant boy. > > But then netfilter was blessed with RCU and the performance > was divine, but alas there were those that suffered for > trying to replace their many rules one at a time. > > So now RCU must be vanquished from the scene, and better > chastity belts be placed upon this valuable asset most dear. > The locks that were but one are now replaced by one per suitor. > > The repair was made after much discussion involving > Eric the wise, and Linus the foul. With flowers springing > up amid the thorns some peace has finally prevailed and > all is soothed. This patch and purple prose was penned by > in honor of "Talk like Shakespeare" day. > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxxxx> Philip Davis of the university’s School of English said : "Shakespeare surprises the brain and catches it off guard in a manner that produces a sudden burst of activity - a sense of drama created out of the simplest of things." http://www.physorg.com/news85664210.html > > --- > What hath changed over the last two setting suns: > * more words, mostly correct... > > * no need to locketh for writeh on current cpu tis > always so > > * the locking of all cpu's on replace is always done as > part of the get_counters cycle, so the sychronize swip > in replace tables is gone with only a comment remaing > > include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h | 55 ++++++++++++++-- > net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c | 125 ++++++++++-------------------------- > net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c | 126 ++++++++++--------------------------- > net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c | 123 ++++++++++-------------------------- > net/netfilter/x_tables.c | 55 ++++++++-------- > 5 files changed, 188 insertions(+), 296 deletions(-) > > > static int __init xt_init(void) > { > - int i, rv; > + unsigned int i; > + int rv; > + static struct lock_class_key xt_lock_key[NR_CPUS]; Could we avoid this [NR_CPUS] thing ? > + > + for_each_possible_cpu(i) { > + rwlock_t *lock = &per_cpu(xt_info_locks, i); > + > + rwlock_init(lock); > + lockdep_set_class(lock, xt_lock_key+i); > + } Did you tried : static DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct lock_class_key, xt_locks_key); static int __init xt_init(void) { unsigned int i; int rv; for_each_possible_cpu(i) { rwlock_t *lock = &per_cpu(xt_info_locks, i); rwlock_init(lock); lockdep_set_class(lock, &per_cpu(&xt_locks_key, i)); } ... Thanks -- 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
