From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:56:55 +0200
Message-ID: <49ED4407.8010200@cosmosbay.com>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904151705120.4042@localhost.localdomain>	<49E72E83.50702@trash.net>	<20090416.153354.170676392.davem@davemloft.net>	<20090416234955.GL6924@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<20090417012812.GA25534@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<20090418094001.GA2369@ioremap.net>	<20090418141455.GA7082@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<20090420103414.1b4c490f@nehalam>	<49ECBE0A.7010303@cosmosbay.com>	<18924.59347.375292.102385@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>	<20090420215827.GK6822@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<18924.64032.103954.171918@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20090420160121.268a8226@nehalam> <49ED406F.2040401@cn.fujitsu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, kaber@trash.net,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com,
	mingo@elte.hu, jengelh@medozas.de, r000n@r000n.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from gw1.cosmosbay.com ([212.99.114.194]:59450 "EHLO
	gw1.cosmosbay.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750951AbZDUD6c convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:58:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: <49ED406F.2040401@cn.fujitsu.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Lai Jiangshan a =C3=A9crit :
> 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 =3D &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
>> +	if (likely(++lock->depth =3D=3D 0))
>=20
> 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 :


>=20
>> +		spin_lock_bh(&lock->lock);
>> +	preempt_enable_no_resched();

After this line, both softirqs and preempt are disabled.

=46uture calls to this function temporarly raise preemptcount and decre=
ase it.
(Null effect)

>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_info_rdlock_bh);
>> +
>=20
> Is this OK for you:
>=20
> void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
> {
> 	struct xt_info_lock *lock;
>=20
> 	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 =3D &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
> 	if (likely(++lock->depth =3D=3D 0))
> 		spin_lock(&lock->lock);
> }
>=20
> Lai.
>=20


Thanks for reviewing Lai