Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:22:27 +0800
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Lai Jiangshan a Ãcrit :
> >> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * xt_table_info_rdlock_bh - recursive read lock for xt table info
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Table processing calls this to hold off any changes to table
> >>> + * (on current CPU). Always leaves with bottom half disabled.
> >>> + * If called recursively, then assumes bh/preempt already disabled.
> >>> + */
> >>> +void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct xt_info_lock *lock;
> >>> +
> >>> +	preempt_disable();
> >>> +	lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
> >>> +	if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
> >> Maybe I missed something. I think softirq may be still enabled here.
> >> So what happen when xt_info_rdlock_bh() called recursively here?
> > 
> > well, first time its called, you are right softirqs are enabled until
> > the point we call spin_lock_bh(), right after this line :
> 
> xt_info_rdlock_bh() called recursively here will enter the
> critical region without &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks)->lock.

NO spin_lock_bh always does a preempt_disable

  xt_info_rdlock_bh            (depth = -1)
+1         preempt_disable
           spin_lock_bh
+1             preempt_disable
-1         preempt_enable_no_resched
---
+1

Second call preempt_count=1   (depth = 0)
       xt_info_rdlock_bh
+1         preempt_disable
-1         preempt_enable_no_resched
---

Result is preempt_count=1 (depth = 1)


Now lets do unlocks
       xt_info_rdunlock_bh  preempt_count=1 depth=1
          does nothing
   xt_info_rdunlock_bh      preempt_count=1 depth = 0
-1      spin_unlock_bh

Resulting preempt_count=0  depth = -1

Same as starting point.

> Because xt_info_rdlock_bh() called recursively here sees
> lock->depth >= 0, and "++lock->depth == 0" is false.
> 
> > 
> > 
> >>> +		spin_lock_bh(&lock->lock);
> >>> +	preempt_enable_no_resched();
> > 
> > After this line, both softirqs and preempt are disabled.

No. spin_lock_bh on first pass does this.

> > Future calls to this function temporarly raise preemptcount and decrease it.
> > (Null effect)
> > 
> >>> +}
> >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_info_rdlock_bh);
> >>> +
> >> Is this OK for you:
> >>
> >> void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
> >> {
> >> 	struct xt_info_lock *lock;
> >>
> >> 	local_bh_disable();
> > 
> > well, Stephen was trying to not change preempt count for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th?... invocation of this function.
> > This is how I understood the code.
> > 
> >> 	lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
> >> 	if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
> >> 		spin_lock(&lock->lock);
> >> }
> >>
> 
> Sorry for it.
> Is this OK:
> 
> void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
> {
> 	struct xt_info_lock *lock;
> 
> 	local_bh_disable();
> 	lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
> 	if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
> 		spin_lock(&lock->lock);
> 	else
> 		local_bh_enable();
> }

Unnecessary.

> I did not think things carefully enough, and I do know
> nothing about ip/ip6/arp.
> 
> Lai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/