netdev - Re: [PATCH] iptables: lock free counters

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: <499DF1A2.1030405@hp.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:56:18 -0800
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iptables: lock free counters

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> 
>>The reader/writer lock in ip_tables is acquired in the critical path of
>>processing packets and is one of the reasons just loading iptables can cause
>>a 20% performance loss. The rwlock serves two functions:
>>
>>1) it prevents changes to table state (xt_replace) while table is in use.
>>   This is now handled by doing rcu on the xt_table. When table is
>>   replaced, the new table(s) are put in and the old one table(s) are freed
>>   after RCU period.
>>
>>2) it provides synchronization when accesing the counter values.
>>   This is now handled by swapping in new table_info entries for each cpu
>>   then summing the old values, and putting the result back onto one
>>   cpu.  On a busy system it may cause sampling to occur at different
>>   times on each cpu, but no packet/byte counts are lost in the process.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
> 
> 
> 
> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
> 
> Sucessfully tested on my dual quad core machine too, but iptables only (no
> ipv6 here)
> 
> BTW, my new "tbench 8" result is 2450 MB/s, (it was 2150 MB/s not so long ago)
> 
> Thanks Stephen, thats very cool stuff, yet another rwlock out of kernel :)

Do you folks need/want further testing against the 32-core setup?

rick jones

> 
> 
>>---
>>Added missing preempt_enable.  Patch against nf-next-2.6 git tree.
>>
>> include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h |    6 +
>> net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c    |  115 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>> net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c     |  120 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c    |  119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> net/netfilter/x_tables.c           |   26 ++++++--
>> 5 files changed, 284 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
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