netdev - Re: [PATCH] sched: Optimize return value of qdisc

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: <1178725965.4058.75.camel@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 09 May 2007 11:52:44 -0400
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Optimize return value of qdisc_restart

Krishna,

On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:17 +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:

> Concurrently is not possible, since everyone needs the queue_lock
> to add/delete. Did I misunderstand your comment ?
> 

I think so, more below where you explain it:

> The dev->queue_lock is held by both enqueue'r and dequeue'r (though
> the dequeue'r drops it before calling xmit). But once the dequeue'r
> re-gets the lock, it is guaranteed that no one else has the lock
> Other CPU's trying to add will block on the lock, or if they have
> already added by getting the lock for a short time while my CPU was

That is how concurency is achieved on the queue. If you have N CPUs, N-1
could be queueing.
Important to note, only one - that owns the QDISC_RUNNING can dequeue.

> doing the xmit, then their qdisc_run returns doing nothing as RUNNING
> is true.
> 

lack of ownership of QDISC_RUNNING is what makes them enqueuers. The CPU
that owns it is the dequeuer. 

> Since I am holding a lock in these two changed areas till I return
> back to __qdisc_run (which clears the RUNNING bit) and then drop the
> lock, there is no way packets can be on the queue while I falsely
> return 0, or no packets on the queue while I falsely return -1.
> 

If you relinquish yourself from being a dequeuer by letting go of
RUNNING then it is possible during that short window one of the other
N-1 CPUs could have been enqueueing; that packet will never be dequeued
unless a new packet shows up some X amount of time later.

> I hope my explanation was not confusing.
> 

I hope what i described above helps. Off for about a day. CCing Herbert
who last made changes to that area incase i missed something ..

cheers,
jamal

PS:- Please dont use my temporary gmail account to respond; a reply-to
will pick the right address (@cyberus.ca).

-
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