Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Kevin Groeneveld <kgroeneveld@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppp: add 64 bit stats
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:59:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1343059184.2626.11027.camel@edumazet-glaptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABF+-6WHqzXhvv9etdAqsamZirbWxWJEsnU-CQ1H8tvynCTOZA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 11:25 -0400, Kevin Groeneveld wrote:

> I am curious if you can elaborate on what is racy about the patch, I
> am still trying to learn.  I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that
> because I was using percpu variables that the stats updates didn't
> need any extra synchronization as any concurrent updates would be on
> different cpus.
> 

ppp paths (xmit versus receive) are reentrant.

Therefore several cpus might do the
u64_stats_update_begin(&stats->syncp) at the same moment : one increment
could be lost forever, making all readers looping forever in
u64_stats_fetch_begin_bh()

include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h

* 3) Write side must ensure mutual exclusion or one seqcount update could
 *    be lost, thus blocking readers forever.
 *    If this synchronization point is not a mutex, but a spinlock or
 *    spinlock_bh() or disable_bh() :


> > I really doubt ppp is performance sensitive, it so doesnt need percpu
> > counter.
> >
> > If you really want 64bits stats on ppp, use proper synchronization
> > around u64 counters (but shared ones)
> 
> I will work on an updated patch without the percpu variables.  I
> didn't really think about servers with many cpus and many ppp sessions
> when I created the patch, I was mainly thinking about my Linksys
> router and other simple clients.  Many of the other network drivers
> use percpu variables for their stats so I just followed along.

Because there is one loopback device only, not thousands ;)

> 
> Would proper synchronization in this case just be wrapping the updates
> in a spin_lock/spin_unlock?

Would be fine (if the proper BH safe variant is used), or you could also
use atomic64_t.

  reply	other threads:[~2012-07-23 15:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-07-22 20:19 [PATCH] ppp: add 64 bit stats Kevin Groeneveld
2012-07-22 21:54 ` David Miller
2012-07-23  0:32   ` Kevin Groeneveld
2012-07-23  0:40     ` David Miller
2012-07-23  5:16 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-07-23 15:25   ` Kevin Groeneveld
2012-07-23 15:59     ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2012-07-24  1:53       ` Kevin Groeneveld
2012-07-24  6:22         ` Eric Dumazet
2012-07-25  2:27           ` Kevin Groeneveld
2012-07-25  4:04             ` Eric Dumazet
2012-07-25 14:43               ` Kevin Groeneveld
2012-07-25 14:50                 ` Eric Dumazet

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1343059184.2626.11027.camel@edumazet-glaptop \
    --to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=kgroeneveld@gmail.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox