netdev - Re: [PATCH nf-next-2.6] xt_hashlimit: RCU conversion

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 01 Apr 2010 13:03:29 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Jorrit Kronjee <j.kronjee@...opact.nl>,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next-2.6] xt_hashlimit: RCU conversion

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> xt_hashlimit uses a central lock per hash table and suffers from
> contention on some workloads. (Multiqueue NIC or if RPS is enabled)
> 
> After RCU conversion, central lock is only used when a writer wants to
> add or delete an entry.
> 
> For 'readers', updating an existing entry, they use an individual lock
> per entry.

Looks good to me, thanks Eric.

> -/* allocate dsthash_ent, initialize dst, put in htable and lock it */
> -static struct dsthash_ent *
> -dsthash_alloc_init(struct xt_hashlimit_htable *ht,
> -		   const struct dsthash_dst *dst)

Is there a reason for moving this function downwards in the file?
That unnecessarily increases the diff and makes the patch harder to
review. For review purposes I moved it back up, resulting in 42
lines less diff.
--
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