From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
kaber@trash.net, jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, 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,
mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:15:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090421111541.228e977a@nehalam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904210831560.2199@localhost.localdomain>
Subject: netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v12)
This version of x_tables (ip/ip6/arp) locking uses a per-cpu
recursive lock that can be nested.
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. This reduces the contention of a
single reader lock (in 2.6.29) without the delay of synchronize_net()
(in 2.6.30-rc2).
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.
I don't like the NR_CPUS preempt count kludge, it is working around an
issue that should be handled in a more generic way.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com
---
CHANGES
- go back to read/write lock
- reader case is now inline
- more comments
- always disables bottom half
- only play preempt count mindgames if really necessary
- add lockdep keys
include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h | 42 ++++++++++++--
net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c | 110 ++++++++-----------------------------
net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c | 110 +++++++------------------------------
net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c | 108 ++++++++----------------------------
net/netfilter/x_tables.c | 77 ++++++++++++++++++-------
5 files changed, 165 insertions(+), 282 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h 2009-04-21 07:57:06.668582345 -0700
+++ b/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h 2009-04-21 11:06:10.381487605 -0700
@@ -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 +431,43 @@ extern void xt_proto_fini(struct net *ne
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);
+
+
+/*
+ * Per-CPU read/write lock. This makes reader locking fast since
+ * there is no shared variable to cause cache ping-pong; but adds an
+ * additional write-side penalty since write must iterate over all
+ * possible CPU's. Readers read lock their per-cpu lock, and writers
+ * write lock on all CPU's.
+ *
+ * Read lock is used by ip/arp/ip6 tables rule processing which runs per-cpu.
+ * It needs to ensure that the rules are not being changed while packet
+ * is being processed.
+ *
+ * Write lock is used in two cases:
+ * 1. reading counter values
+ * all readers need to be stopped and the per-CPU values are summed.
+ *
+ * 2. replacing rules
+ * all packets in flight have to be processed before rules are swapped,
+ * then counters are read from the old (stale) info.
+ *
+ */
+DECLARE_PER_CPU(rwlock_t, xt_info_locks);
+
+static inline void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
+{
+ local_bh_disable();
+ read_lock(&__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks));
+}
+
+static inline void xt_info_rdunlock_bh(void)
+{
+ read_unlock_bh(&__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks));
+}
+
+extern void xt_info_wrlock_bh(void);
+extern void xt_info_wrunlock_bh(void);
/*
* This helper is performance critical and must be inlined
--- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c 2009-04-21 07:57:06.649549203 -0700
+++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c 2009-04-21 08:13:36.133673244 -0700
@@ -338,10 +338,9 @@ ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
tgpar.hooknum = hook;
IP_NF_ASSERT(table->valid_hooks & (1 << hook));
-
- rcu_read_lock_bh();
- private = rcu_dereference(table->private);
- table_base = rcu_dereference(private->entries[smp_processor_id()]);
+ xt_info_rdlock_bh();
+ private = table->private;
+ table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
e = get_entry(table_base, private->hook_entry[hook]);
@@ -436,8 +435,7 @@ ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
e = (void *)e + e->next_offset;
}
} while (!hotdrop);
-
- rcu_read_unlock_bh();
+ xt_info_rdunlock_bh();
#ifdef DEBUG_ALLOW_ALL
return NF_ACCEPT;
@@ -918,60 +916,6 @@ get_counters(const struct xt_table_info
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);
- }
}
static struct xt_counters * alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
@@ -979,7 +923,6 @@ static struct xt_counters * alloc_counte
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 +931,13 @@ static struct xt_counters * alloc_counte
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);
+ xt_info_wrlock_bh();
+ get_counters(private, counters);
+ xt_info_wrunlock_bh();
return counters;
-
- free_counters:
- vfree(counters);
- nomem:
- return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
}
static int
@@ -1377,6 +1303,18 @@ do_replace(struct net *net, void __user
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)
@@ -1437,25 +1375,23 @@ do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __
goto free;
}
- mutex_lock(&t->lock);
+ xt_info_wrlock_bh();
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()];
+ loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(loc_cpu_entry,
private->size,
add_counter_to_entry,
paddc,
&i);
- preempt_enable();
unlock_up_free:
- mutex_unlock(&t->lock);
+ xt_info_wrunlock_bh();
xt_table_unlock(t);
module_put(t->me);
free:
--- a/net/netfilter/x_tables.c 2009-04-21 07:57:06.605264365 -0700
+++ b/net/netfilter/x_tables.c 2009-04-21 11:08:00.526402956 -0700
@@ -625,20 +625,6 @@ void xt_free_table_info(struct xt_table_
}
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)
@@ -676,6 +662,46 @@ void xt_compat_unlock(u_int8_t af)
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_compat_unlock);
#endif
+DEFINE_PER_CPU(rwlock_t, xt_info_locks);
+EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_info_locks);
+
+void xt_info_wrlock_bh(void)
+{
+ unsigned int i;
+
+ local_bh_disable();
+ for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
+ write_lock(&per_cpu(xt_info_locks, i));
+#if NR_CPUS > (PREEMPT_MASK - 1)
+ /*
+ * Since spin_lock disables preempt, the following is
+ * required to avoid overflowing the preempt counter
+ */
+ preempt_enable_no_resched();
+#endif
+ }
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_info_wrlock_bh);
+
+void xt_info_wrunlock_bh(void)
+ __releases(xt_info_lock)
+{
+ unsigned int i;
+
+ for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
+#if NR_CPUS > (PREEMPT_MASK - 1)
+ /*
+ * Spin_unlock calls preempt_enable, but since we had
+ * to adjust the count in xt_info_wrlock_bh, do it again
+ */
+ preempt_disable();
+#endif
+ write_unlock(&per_cpu(xt_info_locks, i));
+ }
+ local_bh_enable();
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_info_wrunlock_bh);
+
struct xt_table_info *
xt_replace_table(struct xt_table *table,
unsigned int num_counters,
@@ -685,22 +711,21 @@ xt_replace_table(struct xt_table *table,
struct xt_table_info *oldinfo, *private;
/* Do the substitution. */
- mutex_lock(&table->lock);
+ xt_info_wrlock_bh();
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);
+ xt_info_wrunlock_bh();
*error = -EAGAIN;
return NULL;
}
oldinfo = private;
- rcu_assign_pointer(table->private, newinfo);
- newinfo->initial_entries = oldinfo->initial_entries;
- mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
+ table->private = newinfo;
+ newinfo->initial_entries = private->initial_entries;
+ xt_info_wrunlock_bh();
- synchronize_net();
return oldinfo;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_replace_table);
@@ -734,7 +759,6 @@ struct xt_table *xt_register_table(struc
/* Simplifies replace_table code. */
table->private = bootstrap;
- mutex_init(&table->lock);
if (!xt_replace_table(table, 0, newinfo, &ret))
goto unlock;
@@ -1147,7 +1171,16 @@ static struct pernet_operations xt_net_o
static int __init xt_init(void)
{
- int i, rv;
+ unsigned int i;
+ int rv;
+ static struct lock_class_key xt_lock_key[NR_CPUS];
+
+ for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
+ rwlock_t *lock = &per_cpu(xt_info_locks, i);
+
+ rwlock_init(lock);
+ lockdep_set_class(lock, xt_lock_key+i);
+ }
xt = kmalloc(sizeof(struct xt_af) * NFPROTO_NUMPROTO, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!xt)
--- a/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c 2009-04-21 07:57:06.621260619 -0700
+++ b/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c 2009-04-21 08:13:36.160551552 -0700
@@ -365,9 +365,9 @@ ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
IP_NF_ASSERT(table->valid_hooks & (1 << hook));
- rcu_read_lock_bh();
- private = rcu_dereference(table->private);
- table_base = rcu_dereference(private->entries[smp_processor_id()]);
+ xt_info_rdlock_bh();
+ private = table->private;
+ table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
e = get_entry(table_base, private->hook_entry[hook]);
@@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
#ifdef CONFIG_NETFILTER_DEBUG
((struct ip6t_entry *)table_base)->comefrom = NETFILTER_LINK_POISON;
#endif
- rcu_read_unlock_bh();
+ xt_info_rdunlock_bh();
#ifdef DEBUG_ALLOW_ALL
return NF_ACCEPT;
@@ -949,64 +949,11 @@ get_counters(const struct xt_table_info
}
}
-/* 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);
- }
-}
-
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 +962,13 @@ static struct xt_counters *alloc_counter
counters = vmalloc_node(countersize, numa_node_id());
if (counters == NULL)
- goto nomem;
-
- info = xt_alloc_table_info(private->size);
- if (!info)
- goto free_counters;
+ return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
- clone_counters(info, private);
-
- 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);
+ xt_info_wrlock_bh();
+ get_counters(private, counters);
+ xt_info_wrunlock_bh();
return counters;
-
- free_counters:
- vfree(counters);
- nomem:
- return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
}
static int
@@ -1405,6 +1335,19 @@ do_replace(struct net *net, void __user
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 +1408,24 @@ do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __
goto free;
}
- mutex_lock(&t->lock);
+ xt_info_wrlock_bh();
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()];
+ loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(loc_cpu_entry,
private->size,
add_counter_to_entry,
paddc,
&i);
- preempt_enable();
+
unlock_up_free:
- mutex_unlock(&t->lock);
+ xt_info_wrunlock_bh();
xt_table_unlock(t);
module_put(t->me);
free:
--- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c 2009-04-21 07:57:06.633261308 -0700
+++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c 2009-04-21 08:13:36.163555922 -0700
@@ -253,9 +253,9 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buf
indev = in ? in->name : nulldevname;
outdev = out ? out->name : nulldevname;
- rcu_read_lock_bh();
- private = rcu_dereference(table->private);
- table_base = rcu_dereference(private->entries[smp_processor_id()]);
+ xt_info_rdlock_bh();
+ private = table->private;
+ 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 +273,7 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buf
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);
@@ -328,8 +329,7 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buf
e = (void *)e + e->next_offset;
}
} while (!hotdrop);
-
- rcu_read_unlock_bh();
+ xt_info_rdunlock_bh();
if (hotdrop)
return NF_DROP;
@@ -734,65 +734,11 @@ static void get_counters(const struct xt
}
}
-
-/* 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);
- }
-}
-
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 +748,13 @@ static struct xt_counters *alloc_counter
counters = vmalloc_node(countersize, numa_node_id());
if (counters == NULL)
- goto nomem;
-
- info = xt_alloc_table_info(private->size);
- if (!info)
- goto free_counters;
+ return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
- clone_counters(info, private);
-
- 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);
+ xt_info_wrlock_bh();
+ get_counters(private, counters);
+ xt_info_wrunlock_bh();
return counters;
-
- free_counters:
- vfree(counters);
- nomem:
- return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
}
static int copy_entries_to_user(unsigned int total_size,
@@ -1165,6 +1094,19 @@ static int do_replace(struct net *net, v
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)
{
@@ -1224,14 +1166,13 @@ static int do_add_counters(struct net *n
goto free;
}
- mutex_lock(&t->lock);
+ xt_info_wrlock_bh();
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()];
@@ -1240,10 +1181,9 @@ static int do_add_counters(struct net *n
add_counter_to_entry,
paddc,
&i);
- preempt_enable();
- unlock_up_free:
- mutex_unlock(&t->lock);
+ unlock_up_free:
+ xt_info_wrunlock_bh();
xt_table_unlock(t);
module_put(t->me);
free:
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-21 18:15 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
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 [this message]
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=20090421111541.228e977a@nehalam \
--to=shemminger@vyatta.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=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=r000n@r000n.net \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=zbr@ioremap.net \
/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).