[PATCH[] netfilter: use per-cpu reader-writer lock (v0.7)

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Stephen Hemminger
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 1:49 pm

This version of x_tables (ip/ip6/arp) locking uses a per-cpu
rwlock that can be nested. It is sort of like earlier brwlock 
(fast reader, slow writer). The locking is isolated so future improvements
can concentrate on measuring/optimizing xt_table_info_lock. I tried
other versions based on recursive spin locks and sequence counters and 
for me, the risk of inventing own locking primitives not worth it at this time.

The idea for this came from an earlier version done by Eric Dumazet.
Locking is done per-cpu, the fast path locks on the current cpu
and updates counters.  This reduces the contention of a
single reader lock (in 2.6.29) without the delay of synchronize_net()
(in 2.6.30-rc2).

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.

Lockdep reports bogus warnings on this, so using raw_write_lock
might be necessary.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com

---
 include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h |   34 +++++++++--
 net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c    |  110 ++++++++-----------------------------
 net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c     |  110 +++++++------------------------------
 net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c    |  108 ++++++++----------------------------
 net/netfilter/x_tables.c           |   63 ++++++++++++++-------
 5 files changed, 144 insertions(+), 281 deletions(-)

--- a/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h	2009-04-16 13:40:57.256734671 -0700
+++ b/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h	2009-04-16 13:40:58.858044088 -0700
@@ -354,9 +354,6 @@ struct xt_table
 	/* What hooks you will enter on */
 	unsigned int valid_hooks;
 
-	/* Lock for the curtain */
-	struct mutex lock;
-
 	/* Man behind the curtain... */
 	struct xt_table_info *private;
 
@@ -434,8 +431,35 @@ extern void xt_proto_fini(struct net *ne
 
 extern struct xt_table_info *xt_alloc_table_info(unsigned int size);
 extern void xt_free_table_info(struct xt_table_info *info);
-extern void xt_table_entry_swap_rcu(struct xt_table_info *old,
-				    struct xt_table_info *new);
+
+
+DECLARE_PER_CPU(rwlock_t, xt_info_locks);
+/**
+ * xt_table_info_lock - recursive read lock for xt table info
+ *
+ * Used for current CPU to read table and update counters.
+ * Allows recursive locking, so bottom half allowed
+ * but preempt disabled
+ */
+static inline void xt_table_info_lock(void)
+{
+	preempt_disable();
+	read_lock(&__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks));
+	preempt_enable_no_resched();
+}
+
+/**
+ * xt_table_info_unlock - release recursive table info lock
+ *
+ * Used after read table and update counters.
+ */
+static inline void xt_table_info_unlock(void)
+{
+	read_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks));
+}
+
+extern void xt_table_info_lock_all(void) 	__acquires(xt_table_info_all);
+extern void xt_table_info_unlock_all(void) 	__releases(xt_table_info_all);
 
 /*
  * This helper is performance critical and must be inlined
--- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c	2009-04-16 13:40:57.241798716 -0700
+++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c	2009-04-16 13:40:58.862043774 -0700
@@ -338,10 +338,9 @@ ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 	tgpar.hooknum = hook;
 
 	IP_NF_ASSERT(table->valid_hooks & (1 << hook));
-
-	rcu_read_lock_bh();
-	private = rcu_dereference(table->private);
-	table_base = rcu_dereference(private->entries[smp_processor_id()]);
+	xt_table_info_lock();
+	private = table->private;
+	table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
 
 	e = get_entry(table_base, private->hook_entry[hook]);
 
@@ -436,8 +435,7 @@ ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 			e = (void *)e + e->next_offset;
 		}
 	} while (!hotdrop);
-
-	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
+	xt_table_info_unlock();
 
 #ifdef DEBUG_ALLOW_ALL
 	return NF_ACCEPT;
@@ -918,60 +916,6 @@ get_counters(const struct xt_table_info 
 				  counters,
 				  &i);
 	}
-
-}
-
-/* We're lazy, and add to the first CPU; overflow works its fey magic
- * and everything is OK. */
-static int
-add_counter_to_entry(struct ipt_entry *e,
-		     const struct xt_counters addme[],
-		     unsigned int *i)
-{
-	ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, addme[*i].bcnt, addme[*i].pcnt);
-
-	(*i)++;
-	return 0;
-}
-
-/* Take values from counters and add them back onto the current cpu */
-static void put_counters(struct xt_table_info *t,
-			 const struct xt_counters counters[])
-{
-	unsigned int i, cpu;
-
-	local_bh_disable();
-	cpu = smp_processor_id();
-	i = 0;
-	IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
-			  t->size,
-			  add_counter_to_entry,
-			  counters,
-			  &i);
-	local_bh_enable();
-}
-
-
-static inline int
-zero_entry_counter(struct ipt_entry *e, void *arg)
-{
-	e->counters.bcnt = 0;
-	e->counters.pcnt = 0;
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static void
-clone_counters(struct xt_table_info *newinfo, const struct xt_table_info *info)
-{
-	unsigned int cpu;
-	const void *loc_cpu_entry = info->entries[raw_smp_processor_id()];
-
-	memcpy(newinfo, info, offsetof(struct xt_table_info, entries));
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		memcpy(newinfo->entries[cpu], loc_cpu_entry, info->size);
-		IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(newinfo->entries[cpu], newinfo->size,
-				  zero_entry_counter, NULL);
-	}
 }
 
 static struct xt_counters * alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
@@ -979,7 +923,6 @@ static struct xt_counters * alloc_counte
 	unsigned int countersize;
 	struct xt_counters *counters;
 	struct xt_table_info *private = table->private;
-	struct xt_table_info *info;
 
 	/* We need atomic snapshot of counters: rest doesn't change
 	   (other than comefrom, which userspace doesn't care
@@ -988,30 +931,13 @@ static struct xt_counters * alloc_counte
 	counters = vmalloc_node(countersize, numa_node_id());
 
 	if (counters == NULL)
-		goto nomem;
-
-	info = xt_alloc_table_info(private->size);
-	if (!info)
-		goto free_counters;
-
-	clone_counters(info, private);
+		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-	mutex_lock(&table->lock);
-	xt_table_entry_swap_rcu(private, info);
-	synchronize_net();	/* Wait until smoke has cleared */
-
-	get_counters(info, counters);
-	put_counters(private, counters);
-	mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
-
-	xt_free_table_info(info);
+	xt_table_info_lock_all();
+	get_counters(private, counters);
+	xt_table_info_unlock_all();
 
 	return counters;
-
- free_counters:
-	vfree(counters);
- nomem:
-	return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 }
 
 static int
@@ -1377,6 +1303,18 @@ do_replace(struct net *net, void __user 
 	return ret;
 }
 
+/* We're lazy, and add to the first CPU; overflow works its fey magic
+ * and everything is OK. */
+static int
+add_counter_to_entry(struct ipt_entry *e,
+		     const struct xt_counters addme[],
+		     unsigned int *i)
+{
+	ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, addme[*i].bcnt, addme[*i].pcnt);
+
+	(*i)++;
+	return 0;
+}
 
 static int
 do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len, int compat)
@@ -1437,25 +1375,23 @@ do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __
 		goto free;
 	}
 
-	mutex_lock(&t->lock);
+	xt_table_info_lock_all();
 	private = t->private;
 	if (private->number != num_counters) {
 		ret = -EINVAL;
 		goto unlock_up_free;
 	}
 
-	preempt_disable();
 	i = 0;
 	/* Choose the copy that is on our node */
-	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[raw_smp_processor_id()];
+	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
 	IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(loc_cpu_entry,
 			  private->size,
 			  add_counter_to_entry,
 			  paddc,
 			  &i);
-	preempt_enable();
  unlock_up_free:
-	mutex_unlock(&t->lock);
+	xt_table_info_unlock_all();
 	xt_table_unlock(t);
 	module_put(t->me);
  free:
--- a/net/netfilter/x_tables.c	2009-04-16 13:40:57.174740286 -0700
+++ b/net/netfilter/x_tables.c	2009-04-16 13:40:58.880757376 -0700
@@ -625,20 +625,6 @@ void xt_free_table_info(struct xt_table_
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(xt_free_table_info);
 
-void xt_table_entry_swap_rcu(struct xt_table_info *oldinfo,
-			     struct xt_table_info *newinfo)
-{
-	unsigned int cpu;
-
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		void *p = oldinfo->entries[cpu];
-		rcu_assign_pointer(oldinfo->entries[cpu], newinfo->entries[cpu]);
-		newinfo->entries[cpu] = p;
-	}
-
-}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_table_entry_swap_rcu);
-
 /* Find table by name, grabs mutex & ref.  Returns ERR_PTR() on error. */
 struct xt_table *xt_find_table_lock(struct net *net, u_int8_t af,
 				    const char *name)
@@ -676,6 +662,40 @@ void xt_compat_unlock(u_int8_t af)
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_compat_unlock);
 #endif
 
+DEFINE_PER_CPU(rwlock_t, xt_info_locks);
+EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_info_locks);
+
+/**
+ * xt_table_info_lock_all - lock xt table info for update
+ *
+ * Locks out all readers, and blocks bottom half
+ */
+void xt_table_info_lock_all(void)
+{
+	int i;
+
+	local_bh_disable();
+	for_each_possible_cpu(i)
+		write_lock(&per_cpu(xt_info_locks, i));
+
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_table_info_lock_all);
+
+/**
+ * xt_table_info_unlock_all - lock xt table info for update
+ *
+ * Unlocks all readers, and unblocks bottom half
+ */
+void xt_table_info_unlock_all(void)
+{
+	int i;
+
+	for_each_possible_cpu(i)
+		write_unlock(&per_cpu(xt_info_locks, i));
+	local_bh_enable();
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_table_info_unlock_all);
+
 struct xt_table_info *
 xt_replace_table(struct xt_table *table,
 	      unsigned int num_counters,
@@ -685,22 +705,21 @@ xt_replace_table(struct xt_table *table,
 	struct xt_table_info *oldinfo, *private;
 
 	/* Do the substitution. */
-	mutex_lock(&table->lock);
+	xt_table_info_lock_all();
 	private = table->private;
 	/* Check inside lock: is the old number correct? */
 	if (num_counters != private->number) {
 		duprintf("num_counters != table->private->number (%u/%u)\n",
 			 num_counters, private->number);
-		mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
+		xt_table_info_unlock_all();
 		*error = -EAGAIN;
 		return NULL;
 	}
 	oldinfo = private;
-	rcu_assign_pointer(table->private, newinfo);
-	newinfo->initial_entries = oldinfo->initial_entries;
-	mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
+	table->private =  newinfo;
+	newinfo->initial_entries = private->initial_entries;
+	xt_table_info_unlock_all();
 
-	synchronize_net();
 	return oldinfo;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_replace_table);
@@ -734,7 +753,6 @@ struct xt_table *xt_register_table(struc
 
 	/* Simplifies replace_table code. */
 	table->private = bootstrap;
-	mutex_init(&table->lock);
 
 	if (!xt_replace_table(table, 0, newinfo, &ret))
 		goto unlock;
@@ -1149,6 +1167,9 @@ static int __init xt_init(void)
 {
 	int i, rv;
 
+	for_each_possible_cpu(i)
+		rwlock_init(&per_cpu(xt_info_locks, i));
+
 	xt = kmalloc(sizeof(struct xt_af) * NFPROTO_NUMPROTO, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!xt)
 		return -ENOMEM;
--- a/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c	2009-04-16 13:40:57.205741715 -0700
+++ b/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c	2009-04-16 13:40:58.882756612 -0700
@@ -365,9 +365,9 @@ ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 
 	IP_NF_ASSERT(table->valid_hooks & (1 << hook));
 
-	rcu_read_lock_bh();
-	private = rcu_dereference(table->private);
-	table_base = rcu_dereference(private->entries[smp_processor_id()]);
+	xt_table_info_lock();
+	private = table->private;
+	table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
 
 	e = get_entry(table_base, private->hook_entry[hook]);
 
@@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 #ifdef CONFIG_NETFILTER_DEBUG
 	((struct ip6t_entry *)table_base)->comefrom = NETFILTER_LINK_POISON;
 #endif
-	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
+	xt_table_info_unlock();
 
 #ifdef DEBUG_ALLOW_ALL
 	return NF_ACCEPT;
@@ -949,64 +949,11 @@ get_counters(const struct xt_table_info 
 	}
 }
 
-/* We're lazy, and add to the first CPU; overflow works its fey magic
- * and everything is OK. */
-static int
-add_counter_to_entry(struct ip6t_entry *e,
-		     const struct xt_counters addme[],
-		     unsigned int *i)
-{
-	ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, addme[*i].bcnt, addme[*i].pcnt);
-
-	(*i)++;
-	return 0;
-}
-
-/* Take values from counters and add them back onto the current cpu */
-static void put_counters(struct xt_table_info *t,
-			 const struct xt_counters counters[])
-{
-	unsigned int i, cpu;
-
-	local_bh_disable();
-	cpu = smp_processor_id();
-	i = 0;
-	IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
-			   t->size,
-			   add_counter_to_entry,
-			   counters,
-			   &i);
-	local_bh_enable();
-}
-
-static inline int
-zero_entry_counter(struct ip6t_entry *e, void *arg)
-{
-	e->counters.bcnt = 0;
-	e->counters.pcnt = 0;
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static void
-clone_counters(struct xt_table_info *newinfo, const struct xt_table_info *info)
-{
-	unsigned int cpu;
-	const void *loc_cpu_entry = info->entries[raw_smp_processor_id()];
-
-	memcpy(newinfo, info, offsetof(struct xt_table_info, entries));
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		memcpy(newinfo->entries[cpu], loc_cpu_entry, info->size);
-		IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(newinfo->entries[cpu], newinfo->size,
-				   zero_entry_counter, NULL);
-	}
-}
-
 static struct xt_counters *alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
 {
 	unsigned int countersize;
 	struct xt_counters *counters;
 	struct xt_table_info *private = table->private;
-	struct xt_table_info *info;
 
 	/* We need atomic snapshot of counters: rest doesn't change
 	   (other than comefrom, which userspace doesn't care
@@ -1015,30 +962,13 @@ static struct xt_counters *alloc_counter
 	counters = vmalloc_node(countersize, numa_node_id());
 
 	if (counters == NULL)
-		goto nomem;
-
-	info = xt_alloc_table_info(private->size);
-	if (!info)
-		goto free_counters;
+		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-	clone_counters(info, private);
-
-	mutex_lock(&table->lock);
-	xt_table_entry_swap_rcu(private, info);
-	synchronize_net();	/* Wait until smoke has cleared */
-
-	get_counters(info, counters);
-	put_counters(private, counters);
-	mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
-
-	xt_free_table_info(info);
+	xt_table_info_lock_all();
+	get_counters(private, counters);
+	xt_table_info_unlock_all();
 
 	return counters;
-
- free_counters:
-	vfree(counters);
- nomem:
-	return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 }
 
 static int
@@ -1405,6 +1335,19 @@ do_replace(struct net *net, void __user 
 	return ret;
 }
 
+/* We're lazy, and add to the first CPU; overflow works its fey magic
+ * and everything is OK. */
+static int
+add_counter_to_entry(struct ip6t_entry *e,
+		     const struct xt_counters addme[],
+		     unsigned int *i)
+{
+	ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, addme[*i].bcnt, addme[*i].pcnt);
+
+	(*i)++;
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int
 do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len,
 		int compat)
@@ -1465,25 +1408,24 @@ do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __
 		goto free;
 	}
 
-	mutex_lock(&t->lock);
+	xt_table_info_lock_all();
 	private = t->private;
 	if (private->number != num_counters) {
 		ret = -EINVAL;
 		goto unlock_up_free;
 	}
 
-	preempt_disable();
 	i = 0;
 	/* Choose the copy that is on our node */
-	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[raw_smp_processor_id()];
+	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
 	IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(loc_cpu_entry,
 			  private->size,
 			  add_counter_to_entry,
 			  paddc,
 			  &i);
-	preempt_enable();
+
  unlock_up_free:
-	mutex_unlock(&t->lock);
+	xt_table_info_unlock_all();
 	xt_table_unlock(t);
 	module_put(t->me);
  free:
--- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c	2009-04-16 13:40:57.226788977 -0700
+++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c	2009-04-16 13:40:58.897816063 -0700
@@ -253,9 +253,9 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buf
 	indev = in ? in->name : nulldevname;
 	outdev = out ? out->name : nulldevname;
 
-	rcu_read_lock_bh();
-	private = rcu_dereference(table->private);
-	table_base = rcu_dereference(private->entries[smp_processor_id()]);
+	xt_table_info_lock();
+	private = table->private;
+	table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
 
 	e = get_entry(table_base, private->hook_entry[hook]);
 	back = get_entry(table_base, private->underflow[hook]);
@@ -273,6 +273,7 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buf
 
 			hdr_len = sizeof(*arp) + (2 * sizeof(struct in_addr)) +
 				(2 * skb->dev->addr_len);
+
 			ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, hdr_len, 1);
 
 			t = arpt_get_target(e);
@@ -328,8 +329,7 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buf
 			e = (void *)e + e->next_offset;
 		}
 	} while (!hotdrop);
-
-	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
+	xt_table_info_unlock();
 
 	if (hotdrop)
 		return NF_DROP;
@@ -734,65 +734,11 @@ static void get_counters(const struct xt
 	}
 }
 
-
-/* We're lazy, and add to the first CPU; overflow works its fey magic
- * and everything is OK. */
-static int
-add_counter_to_entry(struct arpt_entry *e,
-		     const struct xt_counters addme[],
-		     unsigned int *i)
-{
-	ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, addme[*i].bcnt, addme[*i].pcnt);
-
-	(*i)++;
-	return 0;
-}
-
-/* Take values from counters and add them back onto the current cpu */
-static void put_counters(struct xt_table_info *t,
-			 const struct xt_counters counters[])
-{
-	unsigned int i, cpu;
-
-	local_bh_disable();
-	cpu = smp_processor_id();
-	i = 0;
-	ARPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
-			  t->size,
-			  add_counter_to_entry,
-			  counters,
-			  &i);
-	local_bh_enable();
-}
-
-static inline int
-zero_entry_counter(struct arpt_entry *e, void *arg)
-{
-	e->counters.bcnt = 0;
-	e->counters.pcnt = 0;
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static void
-clone_counters(struct xt_table_info *newinfo, const struct xt_table_info *info)
-{
-	unsigned int cpu;
-	const void *loc_cpu_entry = info->entries[raw_smp_processor_id()];
-
-	memcpy(newinfo, info, offsetof(struct xt_table_info, entries));
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		memcpy(newinfo->entries[cpu], loc_cpu_entry, info->size);
-		ARPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(newinfo->entries[cpu], newinfo->size,
-				  zero_entry_counter, NULL);
-	}
-}
-
 static struct xt_counters *alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
 {
 	unsigned int countersize;
 	struct xt_counters *counters;
 	struct xt_table_info *private = table->private;
-	struct xt_table_info *info;
 
 	/* We need atomic snapshot of counters: rest doesn't change
 	 * (other than comefrom, which userspace doesn't care
@@ -802,30 +748,13 @@ static struct xt_counters *alloc_counter
 	counters = vmalloc_node(countersize, numa_node_id());
 
 	if (counters == NULL)
-		goto nomem;
-
-	info = xt_alloc_table_info(private->size);
-	if (!info)
-		goto free_counters;
+		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-	clone_counters(info, private);
-
-	mutex_lock(&table->lock);
-	xt_table_entry_swap_rcu(private, info);
-	synchronize_net();	/* Wait until smoke has cleared */
-
-	get_counters(info, counters);
-	put_counters(private, counters);
-	mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
-
-	xt_free_table_info(info);
+	xt_table_info_lock_all();
+	get_counters(private, counters);
+	xt_table_info_unlock_all();
 
 	return counters;
-
- free_counters:
-	vfree(counters);
- nomem:
-	return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 }
 
 static int copy_entries_to_user(unsigned int total_size,
@@ -1165,6 +1094,19 @@ static int do_replace(struct net *net, v
 	return ret;
 }
 
+/* We're lazy, and add to the first CPU; overflow works its fey magic
+ * and everything is OK. */
+static int
+add_counter_to_entry(struct arpt_entry *e,
+		     const struct xt_counters addme[],
+		     unsigned int *i)
+{
+	ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, addme[*i].bcnt, addme[*i].pcnt);
+
+	(*i)++;
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len,
 			   int compat)
 {
@@ -1224,14 +1166,13 @@ static int do_add_counters(struct net *n
 		goto free;
 	}
 
-	mutex_lock(&t->lock);
+	xt_table_info_lock_all();
 	private = t->private;
 	if (private->number != num_counters) {
 		ret = -EINVAL;
 		goto unlock_up_free;
 	}
 
-	preempt_disable();
 	i = 0;
 	/* Choose the copy that is on our node */
 	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
@@ -1240,10 +1181,9 @@ static int do_add_counters(struct net *n
 			   add_counter_to_entry,
 			   paddc,
 			   &i);
-	preempt_enable();
- unlock_up_free:
-	mutex_unlock(&t->lock);
 
+ unlock_up_free:
+	xt_table_info_unlock_all();
 	xt_table_unlock(t);
 	module_put(t->me);
  free:
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397a ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Fri Apr 10, 10:42 pm)
Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397a ..., Stephen Hemminger, (Sat Apr 11, 8:05 am)
Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397a ..., Stephen Hemminger, (Sat Apr 11, 8:07 am)
Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397a ..., Stephen Hemminger, (Sat Apr 11, 8:50 am)
Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397a ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Sat Apr 11, 10:43 am)
Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397a ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Sat Apr 11, 10:48 am)
Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397a ..., Arkadiusz Miskiewicz, (Sat Apr 11, 11:32 am)
Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397a ..., Evgeniy Polyakov, (Sun Apr 12, 12:23 am)
Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397a ..., Stephen Hemminger, (Sun Apr 12, 9:06 am)
Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397a ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Sun Apr 12, 10:30 am)
Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397a ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Sun Apr 12, 10:31 am)
[PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU, Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Apr 13, 9:53 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU, Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Apr 13, 11:11 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU, Martin Josefsson, (Mon Apr 13, 12:06 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Apr 13, 12:17 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU, Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Apr 13, 4:20 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU, Patrick McHardy, (Tue Apr 14, 5:27 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU, Stephen Hemminger, (Tue Apr 14, 7:45 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU, Stephen Hemminger, (Tue Apr 14, 10:19 am)
[PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v2), Stephen Hemminger, (Tue Apr 14, 11:17 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RC ..., Stephen Hemminger, (Tue Apr 14, 2:11 pm)
[PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3), Stephen Hemminger, (Tue Apr 14, 2:13 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RC ..., Stephen Hemminger, (Wed Apr 15, 9:31 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RC ..., Stephen Hemminger, (Wed Apr 15, 1:55 pm)
[PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu rwlock rather than RCU (v4), Stephen Hemminger, (Wed Apr 15, 2:57 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RC ..., Stephen Hemminger, (Wed Apr 15, 5:01 pm)
[PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock and RCU (v5), Stephen Hemminger, (Wed Apr 15, 5:45 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock and RCU (v5), Eric Dumazet, (Wed Apr 15, 10:01 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock and RCU (v5), Patrick McHardy, (Thu Apr 16, 6:53 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock and RCU (v5), Paul E. McKenney, (Thu Apr 16, 7:47 am)
[PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock (v6), Eric Dumazet, (Thu Apr 16, 9:10 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock (v6), Linus Torvalds, (Thu Apr 16, 9:37 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock (v6), Patrick McHardy, (Thu Apr 16, 9:59 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock (v6), Paul E. McKenney, (Thu Apr 16, 10:58 am)
[PATCH[] netfilter: use per-cpu reader-writer lock (v0.7), Stephen Hemminger, (Thu Apr 16, 1:49 pm)
[PATCH] netfilter: per-cpu spin-lock with recursion (v0.8), Stephen Hemminger, (Thu Apr 16, 4:52 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock (v6), Paul E. McKenney, (Thu Apr 16, 5:13 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RC ..., Mathieu Desnoyers, (Thu Apr 16, 7:19 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RC ..., Stephen Hemminger, (Thu Apr 16, 9:50 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RC ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Thu Apr 16, 10:05 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RC ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Thu Apr 16, 10:08 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RC ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Thu Apr 16, 10:40 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RC ..., Mathieu Desnoyers, (Thu Apr 16, 10:44 pm)
[PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10), Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Apr 20, 10:34 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10), Paul E. McKenney, (Mon Apr 20, 11:21 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10), Eric Dumazet, (Mon Apr 20, 11:25 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10), Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Apr 20, 1:32 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10), Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Apr 20, 1:42 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10), Paul E. McKenney, (Mon Apr 20, 2:05 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10), Paul Mackerras, (Mon Apr 20, 2:23 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10), Paul E. McKenney, (Mon Apr 20, 2:58 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10), Paul Mackerras, (Mon Apr 20, 3:41 pm)
[PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Apr 20, 4:01 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10), Paul E. McKenney, (Mon Apr 20, 4:44 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Lai Jiangshan, (Mon Apr 20, 8:41 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Eric Dumazet, (Mon Apr 20, 8:56 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Apr 20, 9:15 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Eric Dumazet, (Mon Apr 20, 9:59 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Lai Jiangshan, (Mon Apr 20, 10:22 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Lai Jiangshan, (Mon Apr 20, 10:34 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Apr 20, 10:45 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Lai Jiangshan, (Mon Apr 20, 10:46 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Lai Jiangshan, (Mon Apr 20, 11:52 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Evgeniy Polyakov, (Tue Apr 21, 1:16 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Lai Jiangshan, (Tue Apr 21, 1:42 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), David Miller, (Tue Apr 21, 1:49 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Eric Dumazet, (Tue Apr 21, 1:55 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Evgeniy Polyakov, (Tue Apr 21, 2:22 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Lai Jiangshan, (Tue Apr 21, 2:34 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Linus Torvalds, (Tue Apr 21, 9:13 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Apr 21, 9:37 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Stephen Hemminger, (Tue Apr 21, 9:43 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Linus Torvalds, (Tue Apr 21, 9:50 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 21, 11:02 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Stephen Hemminger, (Tue Apr 21, 11:15 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Apr 21, 11:34 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 21, 12:10 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 21, 12:39 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Eric Dumazet, (Tue Apr 21, 12:46 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Linus Torvalds, (Tue Apr 21, 1:14 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Stephen Hemminger, (Tue Apr 21, 2:04 pm)
[PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v13), Stephen Hemminger, (Tue Apr 21, 2:39 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v13), Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Apr 21, 9:17 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Ingo Molnar, (Wed Apr 22, 12:35 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Eric Dumazet, (Wed Apr 22, 1:53 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Jarek Poplawski, (Wed Apr 22, 3:13 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Jarek Poplawski, (Wed Apr 22, 4:39 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v13), Eric Dumazet, (Wed Apr 22, 7:57 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Linus Torvalds, (Wed Apr 22, 8:19 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v13), Linus Torvalds, (Wed Apr 22, 8:32 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Eric Dumazet, (Wed Apr 22, 9:57 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Linus Torvalds, (Wed Apr 22, 10:18 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Ingo Molnar, (Wed Apr 22, 10:48 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11), Jarek Poplawski, (Wed Apr 22, 1:46 pm)
[PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XIV}, Stephen Hemminger, (Thu Apr 23, 9:09 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XIV}, Eric Dumazet, (Thu Apr 23, 9:58 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XIV}, Patrick McHardy, (Fri Apr 24, 8:33 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XIV}, Stephen Hemminger, (Fri Apr 24, 9:18 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XIV}, Jarek Poplawski, (Fri Apr 24, 1:43 pm)
[PATCH] netfilter: iptables no lockdep is needed.., Stephen Hemminger, (Sat Apr 25, 1:30 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: iptables no lockdep is needed.., Jarek Poplawski, (Sun Apr 26, 1:18 am)
[PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XV}, Eric Dumazet, (Sun Apr 26, 11:24 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XV}, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sun Apr 26, 11:56 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XV}, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sun Apr 26, 12:31 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XV}, Eric Dumazet, (Sun Apr 26, 1:55 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XV}, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sun Apr 26, 2:39 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XV}, Stephen Hemminger, (Sun Apr 26, 2:57 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XV}, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sun Apr 26, 3:32 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XV}, Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Apr 27, 10:44 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Apr 27, 11:30 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Apr 27, 11:54 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Apr 27, 12:06 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Apr 27, 12:46 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Apr 27, 12:48 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Evgeniy Polyakov, (Mon Apr 27, 1:36 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Apr 27, 1:58 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Apr 27, 2:40 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Apr 27, 3:24 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Apr 27, 4:01 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Apr 27, 4:03 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Apr 27, 4:32 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Eric Dumazet, (Mon Apr 27, 11:58 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Peter Zijlstra, (Tue Apr 28, 12:41 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Apr 28, 12:42 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, David Miller, (Tue Apr 28, 4:53 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 28, 5:40 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, David Miller, (Tue Apr 28, 6:43 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Tue Apr 28, 6:52 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Apr 28, 7:22 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, David Miller, (Tue Apr 28, 7:37 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Tue Apr 28, 7:49 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, David Miller, (Tue Apr 28, 8:00 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Apr 28, 8:09 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Apr 28, 8:42 am)
[PATCH] netfilter: revised locking for x_tables, Stephen Hemminger, (Tue Apr 28, 9:24 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: revised locking for x_tables, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Apr 28, 9:50 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: revised locking for x_tables, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Apr 28, 9:55 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}, Christoph Lameter, (Tue Apr 28, 10:35 am)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: revised locking for x_tables, David Miller, (Tue Apr 28, 10:37 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: revised locking for x_tables, Jeff Chua, (Wed Apr 29, 8:26 pm)
Re: [PATCH] netfilter: revised locking for x_tables, David Miller, (Wed Apr 29, 8:31 pm)
[PATCH] netfilter: use likely() in xt_info_rdlock_bh(), Eric Dumazet, (Fri May 1, 1:38 am)