Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v2)

[Eric Dumazet]

Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> Subject: iptables: 
> 
> This is an alternative version of ip/ip6/arp tables locking using
> per-cpu locks.  This avoids the overhead of synchronize_net() during
> update but still removes the expensive rwlock in earlier versions.
> 
> The idea for this came from an earlier version done by Eric Duzamet.
> Locking is done per-cpu, the fast path locks on the current cpu
> and updates counters.  The slow case involves acquiring the locks on
> all cpu's.
> 
> The mutex that was added for 2.6.30 in xt_table is unnecessary since
> there already is a mutex for xt[af].mutex that is held.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> ---
>  include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h |    5 -
>  net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c    |  112 +++++++++------------------------
>  net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c     |  123 +++++++++++--------------------------
>  net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c    |  119 +++++++++++------------------------
>  net/netfilter/x_tables.c           |   28 --------
>  5 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 277 deletions(-)

Oh well, it seems factorization of this stuff is not what you want, so
I'll stop arguing.

Please check spelling of my name in ChangeLog, and more importantly :
initialize arp_tables_lock that is missing in V1/2

	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
		spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, cpu));

Then please add my :

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks


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