* [PATCH nf-next-2.6] netfilter: queue: rwlock to spinlock conversion
@ 2010-06-08 13:14 Eric Dumazet
2010-06-09 13:49 ` Patrick McHardy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2010-06-08 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist
Converts queue_lock rwlock to a spinlock.
(readlocked part can be changed by reads of integer values)
One atomic operation instead of four per ipq_enqueue_packet() call.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
---
net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_queue.c | 57 ++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_queue.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_queue.c
index a4e5fc5..d2c1311 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_queue.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_queue.c
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ typedef int (*ipq_cmpfn)(struct nf_queue_entry *, unsigned long);
static unsigned char copy_mode __read_mostly = IPQ_COPY_NONE;
static unsigned int queue_maxlen __read_mostly = IPQ_QMAX_DEFAULT;
-static DEFINE_RWLOCK(queue_lock);
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(queue_lock);
static int peer_pid __read_mostly;
static unsigned int copy_range __read_mostly;
static unsigned int queue_total;
@@ -72,10 +72,10 @@ __ipq_set_mode(unsigned char mode, unsigned int range)
break;
case IPQ_COPY_PACKET:
- copy_mode = mode;
+ if (range > 0xFFFF)
+ range = 0xFFFF;
copy_range = range;
- if (copy_range > 0xFFFF)
- copy_range = 0xFFFF;
+ copy_mode = mode;
break;
default:
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ ipq_find_dequeue_entry(unsigned long id)
{
struct nf_queue_entry *entry = NULL, *i;
- write_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
list_for_each_entry(i, &queue_list, list) {
if ((unsigned long)i == id) {
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ ipq_find_dequeue_entry(unsigned long id)
queue_total--;
}
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
return entry;
}
@@ -136,9 +136,9 @@ __ipq_flush(ipq_cmpfn cmpfn, unsigned long data)
static void
ipq_flush(ipq_cmpfn cmpfn, unsigned long data)
{
- write_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
__ipq_flush(cmpfn, data);
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
}
static struct sk_buff *
@@ -152,9 +152,7 @@ ipq_build_packet_message(struct nf_queue_entry *entry, int *errp)
struct nlmsghdr *nlh;
struct timeval tv;
- read_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
-
- switch (copy_mode) {
+ switch (ACCESS_ONCE(copy_mode)) {
case IPQ_COPY_META:
case IPQ_COPY_NONE:
size = NLMSG_SPACE(sizeof(*pmsg));
@@ -162,26 +160,21 @@ ipq_build_packet_message(struct nf_queue_entry *entry, int *errp)
case IPQ_COPY_PACKET:
if (entry->skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_PARTIAL &&
- (*errp = skb_checksum_help(entry->skb))) {
- read_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ (*errp = skb_checksum_help(entry->skb)))
return NULL;
- }
- if (copy_range == 0 || copy_range > entry->skb->len)
+
+ data_len = ACCESS_ONCE(copy_range);
+ if (data_len == 0 || data_len > entry->skb->len)
data_len = entry->skb->len;
- else
- data_len = copy_range;
size = NLMSG_SPACE(sizeof(*pmsg) + data_len);
break;
default:
*errp = -EINVAL;
- read_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
return NULL;
}
- read_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
-
skb = alloc_skb(size, GFP_ATOMIC);
if (!skb)
goto nlmsg_failure;
@@ -242,7 +235,7 @@ ipq_enqueue_packet(struct nf_queue_entry *entry, unsigned int queuenum)
if (nskb == NULL)
return status;
- write_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
if (!peer_pid)
goto err_out_free_nskb;
@@ -266,14 +259,14 @@ ipq_enqueue_packet(struct nf_queue_entry *entry, unsigned int queuenum)
__ipq_enqueue_entry(entry);
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
return status;
err_out_free_nskb:
kfree_skb(nskb);
err_out_unlock:
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
return status;
}
@@ -342,9 +335,9 @@ ipq_set_mode(unsigned char mode, unsigned int range)
{
int status;
- write_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
status = __ipq_set_mode(mode, range);
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
return status;
}
@@ -440,11 +433,11 @@ __ipq_rcv_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
if (security_netlink_recv(skb, CAP_NET_ADMIN))
RCV_SKB_FAIL(-EPERM);
- write_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
if (peer_pid) {
if (peer_pid != pid) {
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
RCV_SKB_FAIL(-EBUSY);
}
} else {
@@ -452,7 +445,7 @@ __ipq_rcv_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
peer_pid = pid;
}
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
status = ipq_receive_peer(NLMSG_DATA(nlh), type,
nlmsglen - NLMSG_LENGTH(0));
@@ -497,10 +490,10 @@ ipq_rcv_nl_event(struct notifier_block *this,
struct netlink_notify *n = ptr;
if (event == NETLINK_URELEASE && n->protocol == NETLINK_FIREWALL) {
- write_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
if ((net_eq(n->net, &init_net)) && (n->pid == peer_pid))
__ipq_reset();
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
}
return NOTIFY_DONE;
}
@@ -527,7 +520,7 @@ static ctl_table ipq_table[] = {
#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
static int ip_queue_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
{
- read_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
seq_printf(m,
"Peer PID : %d\n"
@@ -545,7 +538,7 @@ static int ip_queue_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
queue_dropped,
queue_user_dropped);
- read_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
return 0;
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH nf-next-2.6] netfilter: queue: rwlock to spinlock conversion
2010-06-08 13:14 [PATCH nf-next-2.6] netfilter: queue: rwlock to spinlock conversion Eric Dumazet
@ 2010-06-09 13:49 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-06-09 14:00 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2010-06-09 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet; +Cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Converts queue_lock rwlock to a spinlock.
>
> (readlocked part can be changed by reads of integer values)
>
> One atomic operation instead of four per ipq_enqueue_packet() call.
Looks fine to me, applied, thanks Eric.
Just wondering since ip_queue is actually obsoleted, do you intend to
change ip6_queue and nfnetlink_queue in a similar fashion?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH nf-next-2.6] netfilter: queue: rwlock to spinlock conversion
2010-06-09 13:49 ` Patrick McHardy
@ 2010-06-09 14:00 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-06-09 14:02 ` Patrick McHardy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2010-06-09 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist
Le mercredi 09 juin 2010 à 15:49 +0200, Patrick McHardy a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Converts queue_lock rwlock to a spinlock.
> >
> > (readlocked part can be changed by reads of integer values)
> >
> > One atomic operation instead of four per ipq_enqueue_packet() call.
>
> Looks fine to me, applied, thanks Eric.
>
> Just wondering since ip_queue is actually obsoleted, do you intend to
> change ip6_queue and nfnetlink_queue in a similar fashion?
>
Indeed, I started these yesterday but had to pause them, probably before
tomorrow, if no urgent stuff raise before ;)
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH nf-next-2.6] netfilter: queue: rwlock to spinlock conversion
2010-06-09 14:00 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2010-06-09 14:02 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-06-09 14:20 ` [PATCH nf-next-2.6] netfilter: ip6queue: " Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2010-06-09 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet; +Cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 09 juin 2010 à 15:49 +0200, Patrick McHardy a écrit :
>
>> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>> Converts queue_lock rwlock to a spinlock.
>>>
>>> (readlocked part can be changed by reads of integer values)
>>>
>>> One atomic operation instead of four per ipq_enqueue_packet() call.
>>>
>> Looks fine to me, applied, thanks Eric.
>>
>> Just wondering since ip_queue is actually obsoleted, do you intend to
>> change ip6_queue and nfnetlink_queue in a similar fashion?
>>
>>
>
> Indeed, I started these yesterday but had to pause them, probably before
> tomorrow, if no urgent stuff raise before ;)
>
Cool, thanks.
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH nf-next-2.6] netfilter: ip6queue: rwlock to spinlock conversion
2010-06-09 14:02 ` Patrick McHardy
@ 2010-06-09 14:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-06-09 14:25 ` Patrick McHardy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2010-06-09 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist
Converts queue_lock rwlock to a spinlock.
(readlocked part can be changed by reads of integer values)
One atomic operation instead of four per ipq_enqueue_packet() call.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
---
net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_queue.c | 57 +++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_queue.c b/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_queue.c
index 8c20174..413ab07 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_queue.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_queue.c
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ typedef int (*ipq_cmpfn)(struct nf_queue_entry *, unsigned long);
static unsigned char copy_mode __read_mostly = IPQ_COPY_NONE;
static unsigned int queue_maxlen __read_mostly = IPQ_QMAX_DEFAULT;
-static DEFINE_RWLOCK(queue_lock);
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(queue_lock);
static int peer_pid __read_mostly;
static unsigned int copy_range __read_mostly;
static unsigned int queue_total;
@@ -73,10 +73,10 @@ __ipq_set_mode(unsigned char mode, unsigned int range)
break;
case IPQ_COPY_PACKET:
- copy_mode = mode;
+ if (range > 0xFFFF)
+ range = 0xFFFF;
copy_range = range;
- if (copy_range > 0xFFFF)
- copy_range = 0xFFFF;
+ copy_mode = mode;
break;
default:
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ ipq_find_dequeue_entry(unsigned long id)
{
struct nf_queue_entry *entry = NULL, *i;
- write_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
list_for_each_entry(i, &queue_list, list) {
if ((unsigned long)i == id) {
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ ipq_find_dequeue_entry(unsigned long id)
queue_total--;
}
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
return entry;
}
@@ -137,9 +137,9 @@ __ipq_flush(ipq_cmpfn cmpfn, unsigned long data)
static void
ipq_flush(ipq_cmpfn cmpfn, unsigned long data)
{
- write_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
__ipq_flush(cmpfn, data);
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
}
static struct sk_buff *
@@ -153,9 +153,7 @@ ipq_build_packet_message(struct nf_queue_entry *entry, int *errp)
struct nlmsghdr *nlh;
struct timeval tv;
- read_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
-
- switch (copy_mode) {
+ switch (ACCESS_ONCE(copy_mode)) {
case IPQ_COPY_META:
case IPQ_COPY_NONE:
size = NLMSG_SPACE(sizeof(*pmsg));
@@ -163,26 +161,21 @@ ipq_build_packet_message(struct nf_queue_entry *entry, int *errp)
case IPQ_COPY_PACKET:
if (entry->skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_PARTIAL &&
- (*errp = skb_checksum_help(entry->skb))) {
- read_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ (*errp = skb_checksum_help(entry->skb)))
return NULL;
- }
- if (copy_range == 0 || copy_range > entry->skb->len)
+
+ data_len = ACCESS_ONCE(copy_range);
+ if (data_len == 0 || data_len > entry->skb->len)
data_len = entry->skb->len;
- else
- data_len = copy_range;
size = NLMSG_SPACE(sizeof(*pmsg) + data_len);
break;
default:
*errp = -EINVAL;
- read_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
return NULL;
}
- read_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
-
skb = alloc_skb(size, GFP_ATOMIC);
if (!skb)
goto nlmsg_failure;
@@ -242,7 +235,7 @@ ipq_enqueue_packet(struct nf_queue_entry *entry, unsigned int queuenum)
if (nskb == NULL)
return status;
- write_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
if (!peer_pid)
goto err_out_free_nskb;
@@ -266,14 +259,14 @@ ipq_enqueue_packet(struct nf_queue_entry *entry, unsigned int queuenum)
__ipq_enqueue_entry(entry);
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
return status;
err_out_free_nskb:
kfree_skb(nskb);
err_out_unlock:
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
return status;
}
@@ -342,9 +335,9 @@ ipq_set_mode(unsigned char mode, unsigned int range)
{
int status;
- write_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
status = __ipq_set_mode(mode, range);
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
return status;
}
@@ -441,11 +434,11 @@ __ipq_rcv_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
if (security_netlink_recv(skb, CAP_NET_ADMIN))
RCV_SKB_FAIL(-EPERM);
- write_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
if (peer_pid) {
if (peer_pid != pid) {
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
RCV_SKB_FAIL(-EBUSY);
}
} else {
@@ -453,7 +446,7 @@ __ipq_rcv_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
peer_pid = pid;
}
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
status = ipq_receive_peer(NLMSG_DATA(nlh), type,
nlmsglen - NLMSG_LENGTH(0));
@@ -498,10 +491,10 @@ ipq_rcv_nl_event(struct notifier_block *this,
struct netlink_notify *n = ptr;
if (event == NETLINK_URELEASE && n->protocol == NETLINK_IP6_FW) {
- write_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
if ((net_eq(n->net, &init_net)) && (n->pid == peer_pid))
__ipq_reset();
- write_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
}
return NOTIFY_DONE;
}
@@ -528,7 +521,7 @@ static ctl_table ipq_table[] = {
#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
static int ip6_queue_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
{
- read_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue_lock);
seq_printf(m,
"Peer PID : %d\n"
@@ -546,7 +539,7 @@ static int ip6_queue_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
queue_dropped,
queue_user_dropped);
- read_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue_lock);
return 0;
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH nf-next-2.6] netfilter: ip6queue: rwlock to spinlock conversion
2010-06-09 14:20 ` [PATCH nf-next-2.6] netfilter: ip6queue: " Eric Dumazet
@ 2010-06-09 14:25 ` Patrick McHardy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2010-06-09 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet; +Cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Converts queue_lock rwlock to a spinlock.
>
> (readlocked part can be changed by reads of integer values)
>
> One atomic operation instead of four per ipq_enqueue_packet() call.
>
Applied, thanks Eric.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-06-09 14:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-06-08 13:14 [PATCH nf-next-2.6] netfilter: queue: rwlock to spinlock conversion Eric Dumazet
2010-06-09 13:49 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-06-09 14:00 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-06-09 14:02 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-06-09 14:20 ` [PATCH nf-next-2.6] netfilter: ip6queue: " Eric Dumazet
2010-06-09 14:25 ` Patrick McHardy
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).