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:   Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:52:15 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
        Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@gmail.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: seqcount usage in xt_replace_table()
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <CAOMFOmU=t9YbE68YpoQn0Ug0XN1F+0iuJp9J=htCRRrbdaPSVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190108223746.shuwx3ro7cgwz7hh@breakpoint.cc>
 <20190110124123.GA21224@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190110124123.GA21224@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20190110145215.GM1215@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:37:46PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > 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).
> > 
> 
> For:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Ensure contents of newinfo are visible before assigning to
> 	 * private.
> 	 */
> 	smp_wmb();
> 	table->private = newinfo;
> 
> we have:
> 
> 	smp_store_release(&table->private, newinfo);
> 
> But what store does that second smp_wmb() order against? The comment:
> 
> 	/* make sure all cpus see new ->private value */
> 	smp_wmb();
> 
> makes no sense what so ever, no smp_*() barrier can provide such
> guarantees.

Agreed, this would require something like synchronize_rcu() or some
sort of IPI-based sys_membarrier() lookalike.

							Thanx, Paul

> > 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.
> 
> Is performance a concern in this path? There is no comment justifying
> this 'creative' stuff.
>