linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3)

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]
Message-ID: <20090417145102.GA6742@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:51:02 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, shemminger@...tta.com,
	dada1@...mosbay.com, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, paulus@...ba.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, jengelh@...ozas.de,
	r000n@...0n.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3)

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 01:44:51AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:19:02PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 04:49:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

[ . . . ]

> > > > +
> > > > +void synchronize_rcu_fgp(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	mutex_lock(&rcu_fgp_mutex);
> > > > +	
> > > > +	/* CPUs must see earlier change before parity flip. */
> > > > +	smp_call_function(rcu_fgp_do_mb, NULL, 1);
> > > 
> > > /*
> > >  * Call a function on all other processors
> > >  */
> > > int smp_call_function(void(*func)(void *info), void *info, int wait);
> > > 
> > > I guess you meant on_each_cpu ? That should include "self", given we
> > > also need the smp_mb().
> > 
> > Hmmm...  Why do we need "self"?  Because synchronize_rcu_fgp() blocks,
> > it had jolly well better not be within a read-side critical section.
> > 
> > So, what am I missing here?
> 
> I mean that I think we also need some smp_mb()s on the writer side,
> don't we ? If we want the changes done by the writer (assign pointer) to
> be shown to the readers before the writer starts flipping the parity, a
> smp_mb() is needed at the beginning of synchronize_rcu_fgp() (actually
> at the same location where you call the rcu_fgp_do_mb ipis), same at the
> end (so we order parity flipping with the next assign pointer).
> 
> Or maybe it's getting late and I am missing the obvious.

The smp_call_function() itself must have barriers in order to ensure
that the other CPUs see the updates to its parameter block.

But see my upcoming response to Dave and Peter.

							Thanx, Paul

> Mathieu
> 
> > > > +
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * We must flip twice to correctly handle tasks that stall
> > > > +	 * in rcu_read_lock_fgp() between the time that they fetch
> > > > +	 * rcu_fgp_ctr and the time that the store to their CPU's
> > > > +	 * rcu_fgp_active_readers.  No matter when they resume
> > > > +	 * execution, we will wait for them to get to the corresponding
> > > > +	 * rcu_read_unlock_fgp().
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	ACCESS_ONCE(rcu_fgp_ctr) ^= RCU_FGP_PARITY;  /* flip parity 0 -> 1 */
> > > > +	rcu_fgp_wait_for_quiescent_state();	     /* wait for old readers */
> > > > +	ACCESS_ONCE(rcu_fgp_ctr) ^= RCU_FGP_PARITY;  /* flip parity 1 -> 0 */
> > > > +	rcu_fgp_wait_for_quiescent_state();	     /* wait for old readers */
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Prevent CPUs from reordering out of prior RCU critical sections. */
> > > > +	smp_call_function(rcu_fgp_do_mb, NULL, 1);
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > Same as above.
> > 
> > Same as above.  ;-)
> > 
> > > Mathieu, who can still recognise his original userspace implementation
> > > :-)
> > 
> > Yeah, I never was all that good at disguising code anyway.  But I did
> > keep a couple of changes.  ;-)
> > 
> > Updated patch below.
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > And here is a crude second cut.  Untested, probably does not even compile.
> > 
> > Straight conversion of Mathieu Desnoyers's user-space RCU implementation
> > at git://lttng.org/userspace-rcu.git to the kernel (and yes, I did help
> > a little, but he must bear the bulk of the guilt).  Pick on srcu.h
> > and srcu.c out of sheer laziness.  User-space testing gives deep
> > sub-microsecond grace-period latencies, so should be fast enough, at
> > least if you don't mind two smp_call_function() invocations per grace
> > period and spinning on each instance of a per-CPU variable.
> > 
> > Again, I believe per-CPU locking should work fine for the netfilter
> > counters, but I guess "friends don't let friends use hashed locks".
> > (I would not know for sure, never having used them myself, except of
> > course to protect hash tables.)
> > 
> > Most definitely -not- for inclusion at this point.  Next step is to hack
> > up the relevant rcutorture code and watch it explode on contact.  ;-)
> > 
> > Changes since v1:
> > 
> > o	Applied Mathieu's feedback.
> > 
> > o	Added docbook headers and other comments.
> > 
> > o	Added the rcu_fgp_batches_completed API required by rcutorture.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > 
> >  include/linux/srcu.h |   42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  kernel/srcu.c        |   89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 131 insertions(+)
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/