Re: seqcount usage in xt_replace_table()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:48:12PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Is performance a concern in this path? There is no comment justifying
> > this 'creative' stuff.
> 
> We have to wait until all cpus are done with current iptables ruleset.
> 
> Before this 'creative' change, this relied on get_counters
> synchronization.  And that caused wait times of 30 seconds or more on
> busy systems.
> 
> I have no objections swapping this with a synchronize_rcu() if that
> makes it easier.

Would using synchronize_rcu() not also mean you can get rid of that
xt_write_recseq*() stuff entirely?

Anyway, synchronize_rcu() can also take a little while, but I don't
think anywere near 30 seconds.

> (synchronize_rcu might be confusing though, as we don't use rcu
>  for table->private), and one 'has to know' that all the netfilter
>  hooks, including the iptables eval loop, run with rcu_read_lock
>  held).

A comment can help there, right?