[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1420728937.5928.8.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 15:55:37 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jhs@...atatu.com,
stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [patch net-next] tc: add BPF based action
On Mi, 2015-01-07 at 17:43 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> +static int tcf_bpf(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct tc_action *a,
> + struct tcf_result *res)
> +{
> + struct tcf_bpf *b = a->priv;
> + int action;
> + int filter_res;
> +
> + spin_lock(&b->tcf_lock);
> + b->tcf_tm.lastuse = jiffies;
> + bstats_update(&b->tcf_bstats, skb);
> + action = b->tcf_action;
> +
> + filter_res = BPF_PROG_RUN(b->filter, skb);
> + if (filter_res == -1)
> + goto drop;
> +
> + goto unlock;
> +
> +drop:
> + action = TC_ACT_SHOT;
> + b->tcf_qstats.drops++;
> +unlock:
> + spin_unlock(&b->tcf_lock);
> + return action;
> +}
In theory this could be like:
filter_res = BPF_PROG_RUN(b->filter, skb);
spin_lock(&b->tcf_lock);
<update stats...>
if (filter_res == -1)
goto drop;
action = b->tcf_action;
...
to keep BPF_PROG_RUN out of the spin_lock?
Bye,
Hannes
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists