linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XIV}

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <49F22465.80305@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:43:17 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
	jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, 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, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH]  netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XIV}

Stephen Hemminger wrote, On 04/24/2009 06:18 PM:

> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:58:39 +0200
> Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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@...tta.com>
>>
>> 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);
>>
> 
> The lock keys are really only used by lock dep, and I thought per cpu
> space was more scarce on some arch.
> 

Maybe I'm wrong but after this change: "- only acquire one cpu write
lock at a time" lockdep_set_class() might be unnecessary. Alas I'm
not able to test it.

Jarek P.
--
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/