Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:15:38 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.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)
Message-ID: <20090420211538.57a6575d@nehalam>
In-Reply-To: <49ED4407.8010200@cosmosbay.com>
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>
	<49ED4407.8010200@cosmosbay.com>
Organization: Vyatta
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1996
Lines: 66

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:56:55 +0200
Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:

> 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.
> > 

In this version, I was trying to use/preserve the optimizations that
are done in spin_unlock_bh().
--
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/