netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, paulus@samba.org, mingo@elte.hu,
	laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, jengelh@medozas.de, r000n@r000n.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock  (v6)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:58:50 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090416175850.GH6924@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49E75876.10509@cosmosbay.com>

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:10:30PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> 
> > Well, we don't really need an rwlock, especially given that we really
> > don't want two "readers" incrementing the same counter concurrently.
> > 
> > A safer approach would be to maintain a flag in the task structure
> > tracking which (if any) of the per-CPU locks you hold.  Also maintain
> > a recursion-depth counter.  If the flag says you don't already hold
> > the lock, set it and acquire the lock.  Either way, increment the
> > recursion-depth counter:
> > 
> > 	if (current->netfilter_lock_held != cur_cpu) {
> > 		BUG_ON(current->netfilter_lock_held != CPU_NONE);
> > 		spin_lock(per_cpu(..., cur_cpu));
> > 		current->netfilter_lock_held = cur_cpu;
> > 	}
> > 	current->netfilter_lock_nesting++;
> > 
> > And reverse the process to unlock:
> > 
> > 	if (--current->netfilter_lock_nesting == 0) {
> > 		spin_unlock(per_cpu(..., cur_cpu));
> > 		current->netfilter_lock_held = CPU_NONE;
> > 	}
> > 
> 
> Yes, you are right, we can avoid rwlock, but use a 'recursive' lock
> or spin_trylock()
> 
> We can use one counter close to the spinlock, 
> no need to add one or two fields to every "thread_info"
> 
> struct rec_lock {
> 	spinlock_t lock;
> 	int        count;
> };
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rec_lock, ip_tables_lock);

Yep, much better approach!

> I also considered using regular spinlocks and spin_trylock() to "detect"
> the recurse case without a global counter.
> 
> lock :
> local_bh_disable();
> int locked = spin_trylock(&__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock);

Hmmm...

What happens if some other CPU is actually holding the lock?  For
example, the updater?

> unlock:
> 
> if (likely(locked))
> 	spin_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock));
> local_bh_enable();
> 
> But we would lose some runtime features, I dont feel comfortable about
> this trylock version. What others people think ?

I do not believe that it actually works.

I much prefer your earlier idea of associating a counter with the lock.

But an owner field is also required, please see below.  Or please let me
know what I am missing.

							Thanx, Paul

> Here is the resulting patch, based on Stephen v4
> 
> (Not sure we *need* recursive spinlock for the arp_tables, but it seems
> better to have an uniform implementation)
> 
> 
> [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock (v6)
> 
> Yet another alternative version of ip/ip6/arp tables locking using
> per-cpu locks.  This avoids the overhead of synchronize_net() during
> update but still removes the expensive rwlock in earlier versions.
> 
> The idea for this came from an earlier version done by Eric Dumazet.
> Locking is done per-cpu, the fast path locks on the current cpu
> and updates counters.  The slow case involves acquiring the locks on
> all cpu's.
> 
> The mutex that was added for 2.6.30 in xt_table is unnecessary since
> there already is a mutex for xt[af].mutex that is held.
> 
> We have to use recursive spinlocks because netfilter can sometimes
> nest several calls to ipt_do_table() for a given cpu.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h |    5 -
>  net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c    |  131 +++++++++------------------
>  net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c     |  130 +++++++++-----------------
>  net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c    |  127 +++++++++-----------------
>  net/netfilter/x_tables.c           |   26 -----
>  5 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 281 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h b/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h
> index 7b1a652..1ff1a76 100644
> --- a/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h
> +++ b/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h
> @@ -354,9 +354,6 @@ struct xt_table
>  	/* What hooks you will enter on */
>  	unsigned int valid_hooks;
>  
> -	/* Lock for the curtain */
> -	struct mutex lock;
> -
>  	/* Man behind the curtain... */
>  	struct xt_table_info *private;
>  
> @@ -434,8 +431,6 @@ extern void xt_proto_fini(struct net *net, u_int8_t af);
>  
>  extern struct xt_table_info *xt_alloc_table_info(unsigned int size);
>  extern void xt_free_table_info(struct xt_table_info *info);
> -extern void xt_table_entry_swap_rcu(struct xt_table_info *old,
> -				    struct xt_table_info *new);
>  
>  /*
>   * This helper is performance critical and must be inlined
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c
> index 5ba533d..9f935f2 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c
> @@ -231,6 +231,12 @@ static inline struct arpt_entry *get_entry(void *base, unsigned int offset)
>  	return (struct arpt_entry *)(base + offset);
>  }
>  
> +struct rec_lock {
> +	spinlock_t lock;
> +	int	   count; /* recursion count */

We also need an owner field:

	int owner;

> +};
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rec_lock, arp_tables_lock);
> +
>  unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  			   unsigned int hook,
>  			   const struct net_device *in,
> @@ -246,6 +252,7 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  	void *table_base;
>  	const struct xt_table_info *private;
>  	struct xt_target_param tgpar;
> +	struct rec_lock *rl;
>  
>  	if (!pskb_may_pull(skb, arp_hdr_len(skb->dev)))
>  		return NF_DROP;
> @@ -255,7 +262,12 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  
>  	rcu_read_lock_bh();
>  	private = rcu_dereference(table->private);
> -	table_base = rcu_dereference(private->entries[smp_processor_id()]);
> +
> +	rl = &__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock);
> +	if (likely(rl->count++ == 0))
> +		spin_lock(&rl->lock);

But if some other CPU holds the lock, this code would fail to wait for
that other CPU to release the lock, right?  It also might corrupt the
rl->count field due to two CPUs accessing it concurrently non-atomically.

I suggest the following, preferably in a function or macro or something:

	cur_cpu = smp_processor_id();
	if (likely(rl->owner != cur_cpu) {
		spin_lock(&rl->lock);
		rl->owner = smp_processor_id();
		rl->count = 1;
	} else {
		rl->count++;
	}

And the inverse for unlock.

Or am I missing something subtle?

> +
> +	table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
>  
>  	e = get_entry(table_base, private->hook_entry[hook]);
>  	back = get_entry(table_base, private->underflow[hook]);
> @@ -273,6 +285,7 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  
>  			hdr_len = sizeof(*arp) + (2 * sizeof(struct in_addr)) +
>  				(2 * skb->dev->addr_len);
> +
>  			ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, hdr_len, 1);
>  
>  			t = arpt_get_target(e);
> @@ -328,7 +341,8 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  			e = (void *)e + e->next_offset;
>  		}
>  	} while (!hotdrop);
> -
> +	if (likely(--rl->count == 0))
> +		spin_unlock(&rl->lock);
>  	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
>  
>  	if (hotdrop)
> @@ -716,74 +730,25 @@ static void get_counters(const struct xt_table_info *t,
>  	curcpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
>  
>  	i = 0;
> +	spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, curcpu).lock);
>  	ARPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[curcpu],
>  			   t->size,
>  			   set_entry_to_counter,
>  			   counters,
>  			   &i);
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, curcpu).lock);
>  
>  	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>  		if (cpu == curcpu)
>  			continue;
>  		i = 0;
> +		spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
>  		ARPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
>  				   t->size,
>  				   add_entry_to_counter,
>  				   counters,
>  				   &i);
> -	}
> -}
> -
> -
> -/* We're lazy, and add to the first CPU; overflow works its fey magic
> - * and everything is OK. */
> -static int
> -add_counter_to_entry(struct arpt_entry *e,
> -		     const struct xt_counters addme[],
> -		     unsigned int *i)
> -{
> -	ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, addme[*i].bcnt, addme[*i].pcnt);
> -
> -	(*i)++;
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
> -/* Take values from counters and add them back onto the current cpu */
> -static void put_counters(struct xt_table_info *t,
> -			 const struct xt_counters counters[])
> -{
> -	unsigned int i, cpu;
> -
> -	local_bh_disable();
> -	cpu = smp_processor_id();
> -	i = 0;
> -	ARPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
> -			  t->size,
> -			  add_counter_to_entry,
> -			  counters,
> -			  &i);
> -	local_bh_enable();
> -}
> -
> -static inline int
> -zero_entry_counter(struct arpt_entry *e, void *arg)
> -{
> -	e->counters.bcnt = 0;
> -	e->counters.pcnt = 0;
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
> -static void
> -clone_counters(struct xt_table_info *newinfo, const struct xt_table_info *info)
> -{
> -	unsigned int cpu;
> -	const void *loc_cpu_entry = info->entries[raw_smp_processor_id()];
> -
> -	memcpy(newinfo, info, offsetof(struct xt_table_info, entries));
> -	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> -		memcpy(newinfo->entries[cpu], loc_cpu_entry, info->size);
> -		ARPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(newinfo->entries[cpu], newinfo->size,
> -				  zero_entry_counter, NULL);
> +		spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -792,7 +757,6 @@ static struct xt_counters *alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
>  	unsigned int countersize;
>  	struct xt_counters *counters;
>  	struct xt_table_info *private = table->private;
> -	struct xt_table_info *info;
>  
>  	/* We need atomic snapshot of counters: rest doesn't change
>  	 * (other than comefrom, which userspace doesn't care
> @@ -802,30 +766,11 @@ static struct xt_counters *alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
>  	counters = vmalloc_node(countersize, numa_node_id());
>  
>  	if (counters == NULL)
> -		goto nomem;
> -
> -	info = xt_alloc_table_info(private->size);
> -	if (!info)
> -		goto free_counters;
> -
> -	clone_counters(info, private);
> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&table->lock);
> -	xt_table_entry_swap_rcu(private, info);
> -	synchronize_net();	/* Wait until smoke has cleared */
> -
> -	get_counters(info, counters);
> -	put_counters(private, counters);
> -	mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
> -
> -	xt_free_table_info(info);
> +	get_counters(private, counters);
>  
>  	return counters;
> -
> - free_counters:
> -	vfree(counters);
> - nomem:
> -	return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  }
>  
>  static int copy_entries_to_user(unsigned int total_size,
> @@ -1165,6 +1110,19 @@ static int do_replace(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +/* We're lazy, and add to the first CPU; overflow works its fey magic
> + * and everything is OK. */
> +static int
> +add_counter_to_entry(struct arpt_entry *e,
> +		     const struct xt_counters addme[],
> +		     unsigned int *i)
> +{
> +	ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, addme[*i].bcnt, addme[*i].pcnt);
> +
> +	(*i)++;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static int do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len,
>  			   int compat)
>  {
> @@ -1173,7 +1131,7 @@ static int do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len,
>  	struct xt_counters *paddc;
>  	unsigned int num_counters;
>  	const char *name;
> -	int size;
> +	int cpu, size;
>  	void *ptmp;
>  	struct xt_table *t;
>  	const struct xt_table_info *private;
> @@ -1224,25 +1182,25 @@ static int do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len,
>  		goto free;
>  	}
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&t->lock);
>  	private = t->private;
>  	if (private->number != num_counters) {
>  		ret = -EINVAL;
>  		goto unlock_up_free;
>  	}
>  
> -	preempt_disable();
> -	i = 0;
>  	/* Choose the copy that is on our node */
> -	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
> +	cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> +	spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
> +	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[cpu];
> +	i = 0;
>  	ARPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(loc_cpu_entry,
>  			   private->size,
>  			   add_counter_to_entry,
>  			   paddc,
>  			   &i);
> -	preempt_enable();
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
> +
>   unlock_up_free:
> -	mutex_unlock(&t->lock);
>  
>  	xt_table_unlock(t);
>  	module_put(t->me);
> @@ -1923,7 +1881,10 @@ static struct pernet_operations arp_tables_net_ops = {
>  
>  static int __init arp_tables_init(void)
>  {
> -	int ret;
> +	int cpu, ret;
> +
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> +		spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
>  
>  	ret = register_pernet_subsys(&arp_tables_net_ops);
>  	if (ret < 0)
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c
> index 810c0b6..1368b6d 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c
> @@ -297,6 +297,12 @@ static void trace_packet(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> +struct rec_lock {
> +	spinlock_t lock;
> +	int	   count; /* recursion count */
> +};
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rec_lock, ip_tables_lock);
> +
>  /* Returns one of the generic firewall policies, like NF_ACCEPT. */
>  unsigned int
>  ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
> @@ -317,6 +323,7 @@ ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  	struct xt_table_info *private;
>  	struct xt_match_param mtpar;
>  	struct xt_target_param tgpar;
> +	struct rec_lock *rl;
>  
>  	/* Initialization */
>  	ip = ip_hdr(skb);
> @@ -341,7 +348,12 @@ ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  
>  	rcu_read_lock_bh();
>  	private = rcu_dereference(table->private);
> -	table_base = rcu_dereference(private->entries[smp_processor_id()]);
> +
> +	rl = &__get_cpu_var(ip_tables_lock);
> +	if (likely(rl->count++ == 0))
> +		spin_lock(&rl->lock);
> +
> +	table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
>  
>  	e = get_entry(table_base, private->hook_entry[hook]);
>  
> @@ -436,7 +448,8 @@ ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  			e = (void *)e + e->next_offset;
>  		}
>  	} while (!hotdrop);
> -
> +	if (likely(--rl->count == 0))
> +		spin_unlock(&rl->lock);
>  	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
>  
>  #ifdef DEBUG_ALLOW_ALL
> @@ -902,75 +915,25 @@ get_counters(const struct xt_table_info *t,
>  	curcpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
>  
>  	i = 0;
> +	spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, curcpu).lock);
>  	IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[curcpu],
>  			  t->size,
>  			  set_entry_to_counter,
>  			  counters,
>  			  &i);
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, curcpu).lock);
>  
>  	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>  		if (cpu == curcpu)
>  			continue;
>  		i = 0;
> +		spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
>  		IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
>  				  t->size,
>  				  add_entry_to_counter,
>  				  counters,
>  				  &i);
> -	}
> -
> -}
> -
> -/* We're lazy, and add to the first CPU; overflow works its fey magic
> - * and everything is OK. */
> -static int
> -add_counter_to_entry(struct ipt_entry *e,
> -		     const struct xt_counters addme[],
> -		     unsigned int *i)
> -{
> -	ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, addme[*i].bcnt, addme[*i].pcnt);
> -
> -	(*i)++;
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
> -/* Take values from counters and add them back onto the current cpu */
> -static void put_counters(struct xt_table_info *t,
> -			 const struct xt_counters counters[])
> -{
> -	unsigned int i, cpu;
> -
> -	local_bh_disable();
> -	cpu = smp_processor_id();
> -	i = 0;
> -	IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
> -			  t->size,
> -			  add_counter_to_entry,
> -			  counters,
> -			  &i);
> -	local_bh_enable();
> -}
> -
> -
> -static inline int
> -zero_entry_counter(struct ipt_entry *e, void *arg)
> -{
> -	e->counters.bcnt = 0;
> -	e->counters.pcnt = 0;
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
> -static void
> -clone_counters(struct xt_table_info *newinfo, const struct xt_table_info *info)
> -{
> -	unsigned int cpu;
> -	const void *loc_cpu_entry = info->entries[raw_smp_processor_id()];
> -
> -	memcpy(newinfo, info, offsetof(struct xt_table_info, entries));
> -	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> -		memcpy(newinfo->entries[cpu], loc_cpu_entry, info->size);
> -		IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(newinfo->entries[cpu], newinfo->size,
> -				  zero_entry_counter, NULL);
> +		spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -979,7 +942,6 @@ static struct xt_counters * alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
>  	unsigned int countersize;
>  	struct xt_counters *counters;
>  	struct xt_table_info *private = table->private;
> -	struct xt_table_info *info;
>  
>  	/* We need atomic snapshot of counters: rest doesn't change
>  	   (other than comefrom, which userspace doesn't care
> @@ -988,30 +950,11 @@ static struct xt_counters * alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
>  	counters = vmalloc_node(countersize, numa_node_id());
>  
>  	if (counters == NULL)
> -		goto nomem;
> -
> -	info = xt_alloc_table_info(private->size);
> -	if (!info)
> -		goto free_counters;
> -
> -	clone_counters(info, private);
> -
> -	mutex_lock(&table->lock);
> -	xt_table_entry_swap_rcu(private, info);
> -	synchronize_net();	/* Wait until smoke has cleared */
> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  
> -	get_counters(info, counters);
> -	put_counters(private, counters);
> -	mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
> -
> -	xt_free_table_info(info);
> +	get_counters(private, counters);
>  
>  	return counters;
> -
> - free_counters:
> -	vfree(counters);
> - nomem:
> -	return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  }
>  
>  static int
> @@ -1377,6 +1320,18 @@ do_replace(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +/* We're lazy, and add to the first CPU; overflow works its fey magic
> + * and everything is OK. */
> +static int
> +add_counter_to_entry(struct ipt_entry *e,
> +		     const struct xt_counters addme[],
> +		     unsigned int *i)
> +{
> +	ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, addme[*i].bcnt, addme[*i].pcnt);
> +
> +	(*i)++;
> +	return 0;
> +}
>  
>  static int
>  do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len, int compat)
> @@ -1386,7 +1341,7 @@ do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len, int compat
>  	struct xt_counters *paddc;
>  	unsigned int num_counters;
>  	const char *name;
> -	int size;
> +	int cpu, size;
>  	void *ptmp;
>  	struct xt_table *t;
>  	const struct xt_table_info *private;
> @@ -1437,25 +1392,25 @@ do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len, int compat
>  		goto free;
>  	}
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&t->lock);
>  	private = t->private;
>  	if (private->number != num_counters) {
>  		ret = -EINVAL;
>  		goto unlock_up_free;
>  	}
>  
> -	preempt_disable();
> -	i = 0;
>  	/* Choose the copy that is on our node */
> -	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[raw_smp_processor_id()];
> +	cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> +	spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
> +	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[cpu];
> +	i = 0;
>  	IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(loc_cpu_entry,
>  			  private->size,
>  			  add_counter_to_entry,
>  			  paddc,
>  			  &i);
> -	preempt_enable();
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
> +
>   unlock_up_free:
> -	mutex_unlock(&t->lock);
>  	xt_table_unlock(t);
>  	module_put(t->me);
>   free:
> @@ -2272,7 +2227,10 @@ static struct pernet_operations ip_tables_net_ops = {
>  
>  static int __init ip_tables_init(void)
>  {
> -	int ret;
> +	int cpu, ret;
> +
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> +		spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
>  
>  	ret = register_pernet_subsys(&ip_tables_net_ops);
>  	if (ret < 0)
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c b/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c
> index 800ae85..5b03479 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c
> @@ -329,6 +329,12 @@ static void trace_packet(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> +struct rec_lock {
> +	spinlock_t lock;
> +	int	   count; /* recursion count */
> +};
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rec_lock, ip6_tables_lock);
> +
>  /* Returns one of the generic firewall policies, like NF_ACCEPT. */
>  unsigned int
>  ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
> @@ -347,6 +353,7 @@ ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  	struct xt_table_info *private;
>  	struct xt_match_param mtpar;
>  	struct xt_target_param tgpar;
> +	struct rec_lock *rl;
>  
>  	/* Initialization */
>  	indev = in ? in->name : nulldevname;
> @@ -367,7 +374,12 @@ ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  
>  	rcu_read_lock_bh();
>  	private = rcu_dereference(table->private);
> -	table_base = rcu_dereference(private->entries[smp_processor_id()]);
> +
> +	rl = &__get_cpu_var(ip_tables_lock);
> +	if (likely(rl->count++ == 0))
> +		spin_lock(&rl->lock);
> +
> +	table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
>  
>  	e = get_entry(table_base, private->hook_entry[hook]);
>  
> @@ -467,6 +479,8 @@ ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  	((struct ip6t_entry *)table_base)->comefrom = NETFILTER_LINK_POISON;
>  #endif
>  	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
> +	if (likely(--rl->count == 0))
> +		spin_unlock(&rl->lock);
>  
>  #ifdef DEBUG_ALLOW_ALL
>  	return NF_ACCEPT;
> @@ -931,73 +945,25 @@ get_counters(const struct xt_table_info *t,
>  	curcpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
>  
>  	i = 0;
> +	spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, curcpu).lock);
>  	IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[curcpu],
>  			   t->size,
>  			   set_entry_to_counter,
>  			   counters,
>  			   &i);
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, curcpu).lock);
>  
>  	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>  		if (cpu == curcpu)
>  			continue;
>  		i = 0;
> +		spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
>  		IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
>  				  t->size,
>  				  add_entry_to_counter,
>  				  counters,
>  				  &i);
> -	}
> -}
> -
> -/* We're lazy, and add to the first CPU; overflow works its fey magic
> - * and everything is OK. */
> -static int
> -add_counter_to_entry(struct ip6t_entry *e,
> -		     const struct xt_counters addme[],
> -		     unsigned int *i)
> -{
> -	ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, addme[*i].bcnt, addme[*i].pcnt);
> -
> -	(*i)++;
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
> -/* Take values from counters and add them back onto the current cpu */
> -static void put_counters(struct xt_table_info *t,
> -			 const struct xt_counters counters[])
> -{
> -	unsigned int i, cpu;
> -
> -	local_bh_disable();
> -	cpu = smp_processor_id();
> -	i = 0;
> -	IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
> -			   t->size,
> -			   add_counter_to_entry,
> -			   counters,
> -			   &i);
> -	local_bh_enable();
> -}
> -
> -static inline int
> -zero_entry_counter(struct ip6t_entry *e, void *arg)
> -{
> -	e->counters.bcnt = 0;
> -	e->counters.pcnt = 0;
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
> -static void
> -clone_counters(struct xt_table_info *newinfo, const struct xt_table_info *info)
> -{
> -	unsigned int cpu;
> -	const void *loc_cpu_entry = info->entries[raw_smp_processor_id()];
> -
> -	memcpy(newinfo, info, offsetof(struct xt_table_info, entries));
> -	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> -		memcpy(newinfo->entries[cpu], loc_cpu_entry, info->size);
> -		IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(newinfo->entries[cpu], newinfo->size,
> -				   zero_entry_counter, NULL);
> +		spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -1006,7 +972,6 @@ static struct xt_counters *alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
>  	unsigned int countersize;
>  	struct xt_counters *counters;
>  	struct xt_table_info *private = table->private;
> -	struct xt_table_info *info;
>  
>  	/* We need atomic snapshot of counters: rest doesn't change
>  	   (other than comefrom, which userspace doesn't care
> @@ -1015,30 +980,11 @@ static struct xt_counters *alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
>  	counters = vmalloc_node(countersize, numa_node_id());
>  
>  	if (counters == NULL)
> -		goto nomem;
> -
> -	info = xt_alloc_table_info(private->size);
> -	if (!info)
> -		goto free_counters;
> -
> -	clone_counters(info, private);
> -
> -	mutex_lock(&table->lock);
> -	xt_table_entry_swap_rcu(private, info);
> -	synchronize_net();	/* Wait until smoke has cleared */
> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  
> -	get_counters(info, counters);
> -	put_counters(private, counters);
> -	mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
> -
> -	xt_free_table_info(info);
> +	get_counters(private, counters);
>  
>  	return counters;
> -
> - free_counters:
> -	vfree(counters);
> - nomem:
> -	return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  }
>  
>  static int
> @@ -1405,6 +1351,19 @@ do_replace(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +/* We're lazy, and add to the first CPU; overflow works its fey magic
> + * and everything is OK. */
> +static int
> +add_counter_to_entry(struct ip6t_entry *e,
> +		     const struct xt_counters addme[],
> +		     unsigned int *i)
> +{
> +	ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, addme[*i].bcnt, addme[*i].pcnt);
> +
> +	(*i)++;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static int
>  do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len,
>  		int compat)
> @@ -1465,25 +1424,26 @@ do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len,
>  		goto free;
>  	}
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&t->lock);
>  	private = t->private;
>  	if (private->number != num_counters) {
>  		ret = -EINVAL;
>  		goto unlock_up_free;
>  	}
>  
> -	preempt_disable();
> -	i = 0;
> +	local_bh_disable();
>  	/* Choose the copy that is on our node */
> -	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[raw_smp_processor_id()];
> +	spin_lock(&__get_cpu_var(ip6_tables_lock).lock);
> +	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
> +	i = 0;
>  	IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(loc_cpu_entry,
>  			  private->size,
>  			  add_counter_to_entry,
>  			  paddc,
>  			  &i);
> -	preempt_enable();
> +	spin_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(ip6_tables_lock).lock);
> +	local_bh_enable();
> +
>   unlock_up_free:
> -	mutex_unlock(&t->lock);
>  	xt_table_unlock(t);
>  	module_put(t->me);
>   free:
> @@ -2298,7 +2258,10 @@ static struct pernet_operations ip6_tables_net_ops = {
>  
>  static int __init ip6_tables_init(void)
>  {
> -	int ret;
> +	int cpu, ret;
> +
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> +		spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
>  
>  	ret = register_pernet_subsys(&ip6_tables_net_ops);
>  	if (ret < 0)
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/x_tables.c b/net/netfilter/x_tables.c
> index 509a956..adc1b11 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/x_tables.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/x_tables.c
> @@ -625,20 +625,6 @@ void xt_free_table_info(struct xt_table_info *info)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(xt_free_table_info);
>  
> -void xt_table_entry_swap_rcu(struct xt_table_info *oldinfo,
> -			     struct xt_table_info *newinfo)
> -{
> -	unsigned int cpu;
> -
> -	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> -		void *p = oldinfo->entries[cpu];
> -		rcu_assign_pointer(oldinfo->entries[cpu], newinfo->entries[cpu]);
> -		newinfo->entries[cpu] = p;
> -	}
> -
> -}
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_table_entry_swap_rcu);
> -
>  /* Find table by name, grabs mutex & ref.  Returns ERR_PTR() on error. */
>  struct xt_table *xt_find_table_lock(struct net *net, u_int8_t af,
>  				    const char *name)
> @@ -682,26 +668,21 @@ xt_replace_table(struct xt_table *table,
>  	      struct xt_table_info *newinfo,
>  	      int *error)
>  {
> -	struct xt_table_info *oldinfo, *private;
> +	struct xt_table_info *private;
>  
>  	/* Do the substitution. */
> -	mutex_lock(&table->lock);
>  	private = table->private;
>  	/* Check inside lock: is the old number correct? */
>  	if (num_counters != private->number) {
>  		duprintf("num_counters != table->private->number (%u/%u)\n",
>  			 num_counters, private->number);
> -		mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
>  		*error = -EAGAIN;
>  		return NULL;
>  	}
> -	oldinfo = private;
>  	rcu_assign_pointer(table->private, newinfo);
> -	newinfo->initial_entries = oldinfo->initial_entries;
> -	mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
> +	newinfo->initial_entries = private->initial_entries;
>  
> -	synchronize_net();
> -	return oldinfo;
> +	return private;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_replace_table);
>  
> @@ -734,7 +715,6 @@ struct xt_table *xt_register_table(struct net *net, struct xt_table *table,
>  
>  	/* Simplifies replace_table code. */
>  	table->private = bootstrap;
> -	mutex_init(&table->lock);
>  
>  	if (!xt_replace_table(table, 0, newinfo, &ret))
>  		goto unlock;
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-04-16 17:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 215+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904101656190.2093@boston.corp.fedex.com>
     [not found] ` <20090410095246.4fdccb56@s6510>
2009-04-11  1:25   ` iptables very slow after commit784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 David Miller
2009-04-11  1:39     ` iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11  4:15       ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-11  5:14         ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-11  5:42           ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-11  6:00           ` David Miller
2009-04-11 18:12             ` Kyle Moffett
2009-04-11 18:32               ` Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
2009-04-12  0:54               ` david
2009-04-12  5:05                 ` Kyle Moffett
2009-04-12 12:30                 ` Harald Welte
2009-04-12 16:38             ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-11 15:07           ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-11 16:05             ` Jeff Chua
2009-04-11 17:51           ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11  7:08         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-11 15:05           ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-11 17:48           ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-12 10:54             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-12 11:34             ` Paul Mackerras
2009-04-12 17:31               ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-13  1:13                 ` David Miller
2009-04-13  4:04                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-13 16:53                     ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-13 17:40                       ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-13 18:11                         ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-13 19:06                       ` Martin Josefsson
2009-04-13 19:17                         ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-13 22:24                       ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-13 23:20                         ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-13 23:26                           ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-13 23:37                             ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-13 23:52                               ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-14 12:27                       ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-14 14:23                         ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-14 14:45                           ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-14 15:49                             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-14 16:51                               ` Jeff Chua
2009-04-14 18:17                                 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v2) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-14 19:28                                   ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-14 21:11                                     ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-14 21:13                                     ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-14 21:40                                       ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-15 10:59                                         ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-15 16:31                                           ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-15 20:55                                           ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-15 21:07                                             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-15 21:55                                               ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-16 12:12                                                 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-16 12:24                                                   ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-16 12:31                                                     ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-15 21:57                                               ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu rwlock rather than RCU (v4) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-15 23:48                                               ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) David Miller
2009-04-16  0:01                                                 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-16  0:05                                                   ` David Miller
2009-04-16 12:28                                                     ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-16  0:10                                                   ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-16  0:45                                                     ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock and RCU (v5) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-16  5:01                                                       ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-16 13:53                                                         ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-16 14:47                                                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-16 16:10                                                             ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock (v6) Eric Dumazet
2009-04-16 16:20                                                               ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-16 16:37                                                               ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-16 16:59                                                                 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-16 17:58                                                               ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-04-16 18:41                                                                 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-16 20:49                                                                   ` [PATCH[] netfilter: use per-cpu reader-writer lock (v0.7) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-16 21:02                                                                     ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-16 23:04                                                                       ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-17  0:13                                                                   ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock (v6) Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-16 13:11                                                     ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) Patrick McHardy
2009-04-16 22:33                                                       ` David Miller
2009-04-16 23:49                                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-16 23:52                                                           ` [PATCH] netfilter: per-cpu spin-lock with recursion (v0.8) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-17  0:15                                                             ` Jeff Chua
2009-04-17  5:55                                                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17  6:03                                                             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-17  6:14                                                               ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-17 17:08                                                                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 11:17                                                               ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-17  1:28                                                           ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17  2:19                                                             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-17  5:05                                                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17  5:44                                                                 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-17 14:51                                                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17  4:50                                                             ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-17  5:08                                                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17  5:16                                                               ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-17  5:40                                                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17  8:07                                                                   ` David Miller
2009-04-17 15:00                                                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17 17:22                                                                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 17:32                                                                       ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-17  6:12                                                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 16:33                                                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-17 16:51                                                                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 21:29                                                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-18  9:40                                                             ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2009-04-18 14:14                                                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-20 17:34                                                                 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-20 18:21                                                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-20 18:25                                                                   ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-20 20:32                                                                     ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-20 20:42                                                                     ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-20 21:05                                                                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-20 21:23                                                                     ` Paul Mackerras
2009-04-20 21:58                                                                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-20 22:41                                                                         ` Paul Mackerras
2009-04-20 23:01                                                                           ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-21  3:41                                                                             ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21  3:56                                                                               ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-21  4:15                                                                                 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-21  5:22                                                                                 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21  5:45                                                                                   ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-21  6:52                                                                                     ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21  8:16                                                                                       ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2009-04-21  8:42                                                                                         ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21  8:49                                                                                           ` David Miller
2009-04-21  8:55                                                                                         ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-21  9:22                                                                                           ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2009-04-21  9:34                                                                                           ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21  5:34                                                                                 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21  4:59                                                                             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-21 16:37                                                                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-21  5:46                                                                             ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-21 16:13                                                                             ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-21 16:43                                                                               ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-21 16:50                                                                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-21 18:02                                                                               ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 18:15                                                                               ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-21 19:10                                                                                 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 19:46                                                                                   ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-22  7:35                                                                                     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22  8:53                                                                                       ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-22 10:13                                                                                         ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-04-22 11:26                                                                                           ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 11:39                                                                                             ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-04-22 11:18                                                                                         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 15:19                                                                                         ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-22 16:57                                                                                           ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-22 17:18                                                                                             ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-22 20:46                                                                                               ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-04-22 17:48                                                                                         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 21:04                                                                                   ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-22  8:00                                                                                     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 19:39                                                                                 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 21:39                                                                                   ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v13) Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-22  4:17                                                                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-22 14:57                                                                                     ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-22 15:32                                                                                     ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-24  4:09                                                                                       ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XIV} Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-24  4:58                                                                                         ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-24 15:33                                                                                           ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-24 16:18                                                                                           ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-24 20:43                                                                                             ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-04-25 20:30                                                                                               ` [PATCH] netfilter: iptables no lockdep is needed Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-26  8:18                                                                                                 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-04-26 18:24                                                                                                 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XV} Eric Dumazet
2009-04-26 18:56                                                                                                   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-26 21:57                                                                                                     ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-26 22:32                                                                                                       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-27 17:44                                                                                                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-27 18:30                                                                                                         ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive " Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-27 18:54                                                                                                           ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-27 19:06                                                                                                             ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-27 19:46                                                                                                               ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-27 19:48                                                                                                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-27 20:36                                                                                                                 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2009-04-27 20:58                                                                                                                   ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-27 21:40                                                                                                                     ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-27 22:24                                                                                                                       ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-27 23:01                                                                                                                         ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-27 23:03                                                                                                                           ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-28  6:58                                                                                                                             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 11:53                                                                                                                               ` David Miller
2009-04-28 12:40                                                                                                                                 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-28 13:43                                                                                                                                   ` David Miller
2009-04-28 13:52                                                                                                                                     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-28 14:37                                                                                                                                       ` David Miller
2009-04-28 14:49                                                                                                                                         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-28 15:00                                                                                                                                           ` David Miller
2009-04-28 16:24                                                                                                                                             ` [PATCH] netfilter: revised locking for x_tables Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-28 16:50                                                                                                                                               ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-28 16:55                                                                                                                                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-29  5:37                                                                                                                                                   ` David Miller
     [not found]                                                                                                                                                     ` <20090428.223708.168741998.davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org>
2009-04-30  3:26                                                                                                                                                       ` Jeff Chua
     [not found]                                                                                                                                                         ` <b6a2187b0904292026k7d6107a7vcdc761d4149f40aa-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2009-04-30  3:31                                                                                                                                                           ` David Miller
2009-05-01  8:38                                                                                                                                                     ` [PATCH] netfilter: use likely() in xt_info_rdlock_bh() Eric Dumazet
2009-05-01 16:10                                                                                                                                                       ` David Miller
2009-04-28 15:42                                                                                                                                     ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV} Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-28 17:35                                                                                                                                       ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 15:09                                                                                                                               ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-27 23:32                                                                                                                           ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-28  7:41                                                                                                                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-28 14:22                                                                                                                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-28  7:42                                                                                                                 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-26 19:31                                                                                                   ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive " Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-26 20:55                                                                                                     ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-26 21:39                                                                                                       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-21 18:34                                                                               ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11) Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-21 20:14                                                                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-20 23:44                                                                           ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10) Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-16  0:02                                                 ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) Linus Torvalds
2009-04-16  6:26                                                 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-16 14:33                                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-15  3:23                                       ` David Miller
2009-04-14 17:19                               ` [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-11 15:50         ` iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-11 17:43           ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-11 18:57         ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-12  0:34           ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-12  7:23             ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2009-04-12 16:06             ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-12 17:30               ` Paul E. McKenney

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=20090416175850.GH6924@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=jengelh@medozas.de \
    --cc=kaber@trash.net \
    --cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=r000n@r000n.net \
    --cc=shemminger@vyatta.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).