Date:	Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:22:57 -0500
From:	Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	shemminger@...tta.com, benny+usenet@...rsen.dk,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, johnpol@....mipt.ru,
	Christian Bell <christian@...i.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] udp: RCU handling for Unicast packets.

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:00:13PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> Hum... Another way of handling all those cases and avoid memory 
>>> barriers
>>> would be to have different "NULL" pointers.
>>>
>>> Each hash chain should have a unique "NULL" pointer (in the case of 
>>> UDP, it
>>> can be the 128 values : [ (void*)0 .. (void *)127 ]
>>>
>>> Then, when performing a lookup, a reader should check the "NULL" 
>>> pointer
>>> it get at the end of its lookup has is the "hash" value of its chain.
>>>
>>> If not -> restart the loop, aka "goto begin;" :)
>>>
>>> We could avoid memory barriers then.
>>>
>>> In the two cases Corey mentioned, this trick could let us avoid 
>>> memory barriers.
>>> (existing one in sk_add_node_rcu(sk, &hslot->head); should be enough)
>>>
>>> What do you think ?
>>
>> Kinky!!!  ;-)
>>
>> Then the rcu_dereference() would be supplying the needed memory 
>> barriers.
>>
>> Hmmm...  I guess that the only confusion would be if the element got
>> removed and then added to the same list.  But then if its pointer was
>> pseudo-NULL, then that would mean that all subsequent elements had been
>> removed, and all preceding ones added after the scan started.
>>
>> Which might well be harmless, but I must defer to you on this one at
>> the moment.
>>
>> If you need a larger hash table, another approach would be to set the
>> pointer's low-order bit, allowing the upper bits to be a full-sized
>> index -- or even a pointer to the list header.  Just make very sure
>> to clear the pointer when freeing, or an element on the freelist
>> could end up looking like a legitimate end of list...  Which again
>> might well be safe, but why inflict this on oneself?
>
> Well, for UDP case, hash table will be <= 65536 anyway, we can assume
> no dynamic kernel memory is in the range [0 .. 65535]
>
> Here is a patch (untested yet, its really time for a sleep for me ;) )
>
> [PATCH] udp: Introduce special NULL pointers for hlist termination
>
> In order to safely detect changes in chains, we would like to have 
> different
> 'NULL' pointers. Each chain in hash table is terminated by an unique 
> 'NULL'
> value, so that the lockless readers can detect their lookups evaded from
> their starting chain.
>
> We define 'NULL' values as ((unsigned long)values < UDP_HTABLE_SIZE)
>
> This saves memory barriers (a read barrier to fetch 'next' pointers
> *before* checking key values) we added in commit 
> 96631ed16c514cf8b28fab991a076985ce378c26 (udp: introduce 
> sk_for_each_rcu_safenext())
> This also saves a missing memory barrier spotted by Corey Minyard (a 
> write one in udp_lib_get_port(), between sk_hash update and ->next 
> update)
I think you are right, this will certainly perform a lot better without 
the read barrier in the list traversal.  I haven't seen any problems 
with this approach, though it's unusual enough to perhaps warrant some 
extra comments in the code.

You do need to modify udp_lib_unhash(), as sk_del_node_init_rcu() will 
do a NULL check on the ->next value, so you will need a special version 
of that as well.

-corey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists