Re: [PATCH] Fix Bug messages

[John Kacur]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 15:49 +0200, John Kacur wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Index: linux-2.6.26-rt1/net/core/sock.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.26-rt1.orig/net/core/sock.c
>> +++ linux-2.6.26-rt1/net/core/sock.c
>> @@ -1986,11 +1986,12 @@ static __init int net_inuse_init(void)
>>
>>  core_initcall(net_inuse_init);
>>  #else
>> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct prot_inuse, prot_inuse);
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_LOCKED(struct prot_inuse, prot_inuse);
>>
>>  void sock_prot_inuse_add(struct net *net, struct proto *prot, int val)
>>  {
>> -       __get_cpu_var(prot_inuse).val[prot->inuse_idx] += val;
>> +       int cpu = 0;
>> +       __get_cpu_var_locked(prot_inuse, cpu).val[prot->inuse_idx] += val;
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sock_prot_inuse_add);
>>
>> @@ -2000,7 +2001,7 @@ int sock_prot_inuse_get(struct net *net,
>>         int res = 0;
>>
>>         for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
>> -               res += per_cpu(prot_inuse, cpu).val[idx];
>> +               res += per_cpu_var_locked(prot_inuse, cpu).val[idx];
>>
>>         return res >= 0 ? res : 0;
>>  }
>
> This doesn't look good. You declare it as a PER_CPU_LOCKED, but then
> never use the extra lock to synchronize data.
>
> Given that sock_proc_inuse_get() is a racy read anyway, the 'right' fix
> would be to do something like:
>
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index 91f8bbc..5a8ace4 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -1941,8 +1941,9 @@ static DECLARE_BITMAP(proto_inuse_idx, PROTO_INUSE_NR);
>  #ifdef CONFIG_NET_NS
>  void sock_prot_inuse_add(struct net *net, struct proto *prot, int val)
>  {
> -       int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +       int cpu = get_cpu();
>        per_cpu_ptr(net->core.inuse, cpu)->val[prot->inuse_idx] += val;
> +       put_cpu();
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sock_prot_inuse_add);
>
> @@ -1988,7 +1989,9 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct prot_inuse, prot_inuse);
>
>  void sock_prot_inuse_add(struct net *net, struct proto *prot, int val)
>  {
> -       __get_cpu_var(prot_inuse).val[prot->inuse_idx] += val;
> +       int cpu = get_cpu();
> +       per_cpu(prot_inuse, cpu).val[prot->inuse_idx] += val;
> +       put_cpu();
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sock_prot_inuse_add);
>
> This disables preemption, but only for a very short time - so it doesn't
> hurt the preempt-latency.
>
> The alternative is to take a lock, do the inc, and drop the lock again,
> which is much more expensive.
>
>

Cool, thanks for the quick feedback. What kind of criteria are used to
decide between disabling preemption for a short time, or using the
more expensive lock?
--
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/