Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock (v6)

[Eric Dumazet]

Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> 
> But if some other CPU holds the lock, this code would fail to wait for
> that other CPU to release the lock, right?  It also might corrupt the
> rl->count field due to two CPUs accessing it concurrently non-atomically.

If another cpu holds the lock, this cpu will spin on its own lock.

Remember other cpus dont touch rl->count. This is a private field, only touched
by the cpu on its own per_cpu data. There is no possible 'corruption'


So the owner of the per_cpu data does :

/*
 * disable preemption, get rl = &__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock);
 * then :
 */
lock_time :
if (++rl->count == 0)
	spin_lock(&rl->lock);

unlock_time:
if (likely(--rl->count == 0))
	spin_unlock(&rl->lock);


while other cpus only do :

spin_lock(&rl->lock);
/* work on data */
spin_unlock(&rl->lock);

So they cannot corrupt 'count' stuff.

> 
> I suggest the following, preferably in a function or macro or something:
> 
> 	cur_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> 	if (likely(rl->owner != cur_cpu) {
> 		spin_lock(&rl->lock);
> 		rl->owner = smp_processor_id();
> 		rl->count = 1;
> 	} else {
> 		rl->count++;
> 	}
> 
> And the inverse for unlock.
> 
> Or am I missing something subtle?

Apparently Linus missed it too, and reacted badly to my mail.
I dont know why we discuss of this stuff on lkml either...

I stop working on this subject and consider drinking dome hard stuf and
watching tv :)

See you

--
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/