Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 8 Jan 2019 23:37:46 +0100
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To:     Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@gmail.com>
Cc:     fw@strlen.de, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        paulmck@linux.ibm.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: seqcount usage in xt_replace_table()
Message-ID: <20190108223746.shuwx3ro7cgwz7hh@breakpoint.cc>
References: <CAOMFOmU=t9YbE68YpoQn0Ug0XN1F+0iuJp9J=htCRRrbdaPSVA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOMFOmU=t9YbE68YpoQn0Ug0XN1F+0iuJp9J=htCRRrbdaPSVA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or maybe xt_replace_table() can be enhanced? When I hear that
> something waits until an event happens on all CPUs I think about
> wait_event() function. Would it be better for xt_replace_table() to
> introduce an atomic counter that is decremented by CPUs, and the main
> CPU waits until the counter gets zero?

That would mean placing an additional atomic op into the
iptables evaluation path (ipt_do_table and friends).

Only alternative I see that might work is synchronize_rcu (the
_do_table functions are called with rcu read lock held).

I guess current scheme is cheaper though.