Message-ID: <49ED4407.8010200@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:56:55 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)
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>
In-Reply-To: <49ED406F.2040401@cn.fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1736
Lines: 64

Lai Jiangshan a écrit :
> 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 = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
>> +	if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
> 
> 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 :


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

After this line, both softirqs and preempt are disabled.

Future calls to this function temporarly raise preemptcount and decrease it.
(Null effect)

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


Thanks for reviewing Lai

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/