Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock and RCU (v5)

[Patrick McHardy]

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> > 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 Dumazet.
> > 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. This version uses RCU for the table->base reference
> > but per-cpu-lock for counters.

> This version is a regression over 2.6.2[0-9], because of two points
>
> 1) Much more atomic ops :
>
> Because of additional
>
> > +			spin_lock(&__get_cpu_var(ip_tables_lock));
> >  			ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, ntohs(ip->tot_len), 1);
> > +			spin_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(ip_tables_lock));
>
> added on each counter updates.
>
> On many setups, each packet coming in or out of the machine has
> to update between 2 to 20 rule counters. So to avoid *one* atomic ops
> of read_unlock(), this v4 version adds 2 to 20 atomic ops...

I agree, this seems to be a step backwards.

> I still not see the problem between the previous version (2.6.2[0-8]) that had a central
>  rwlock, that hurted performance on SMP because of cache line ping pong, and the solution
> having one rwlock per cpu.
>
> We wanted to reduce the cache line ping pong first. This *is* the hurting point,
> by an order of magnitude.

Dave doesn't seem to like the rwlock approach. I don't see a way to
do anything asynchronously like call_rcu() to improve this, so to
bring up one of Stephens suggestions again:

> > >   * use on_each_cpu() somehow to do grace periood?

We could use this to replace the counters, presuming it is
indeed faster than waiting for a RCU grace period.

> 2) Second problem : Potential OOM
>
> About freeing old rules with call_rcu() and/or schedule_work(), this is going
> to OOM pretty fast on small appliances with basic firewall setups loading
> rules one by one, as done by original topic reporter.
>
> We had reports from guys using linux with 4MB of available ram (French provider free.fr on
> their applicance box), and we had to use SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU thing on conntrack
>  to avoid OOM for their setups. We dont want to use call_rcu() and queue 100 or 200 vfree().

Agreed.
--
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/