Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)

[Ingo Molnar]

* Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> +void xt_info_wrlock_bh(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned int i;
> +
> +	local_bh_disable();
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> +		write_lock(&per_cpu(xt_info_locks, i));
> +#if NR_CPUS > (PREEMPT_MASK - 1)
> +		/*
> +		 * Since spin_lock disables preempt, the following is
> +		 * required to avoid overflowing the preempt counter
> +		 */
> +		preempt_enable_no_resched();
> +#endif
> +	}
> +}

hm, this is rather ugly and it will make a lot of instrumentation 
code explode.

Why not use the obvious solution: a _single_ wrlock for global 
access and read_can_lock() plus per cpu locks in the fastpath?

That way there's no global cacheline bouncing (just the _reading_ of 
a global cacheline - which will be nicely localized - on NUMA too) - 
and we will hold at most 1-2 locks at once!

Something like:

	__cacheline_aligned DEFINE_RWLOCK(global_wrlock);

	DEFINE_PER_CPU(rwlock_t local_lock);


	void local_read_lock(void)
	{
	again:
		read_lock(&per_cpu(local_lock, this_cpu));

		if (unlikely(!read_can_lock(&global_wrlock))) {
			read_unlock(&per_cpu(local_lock, this_cpu));
			/*
			 * Just wait for any global write activity:
			 */
			read_unlock_wait(&global_wrlock);
			goto again;
		}
	}

	void global_write_lock(void)
	{
		write_lock(&global_wrlock);

		for_each_possible_cpu(i)
			write_unlock_wait(&per_cpu(local_lock, i));
	}

Note how nesting friendly this construct is: we dont actually _hold_ 
NR_CPUS locks all at once, we simply cycle through all CPUs and make 
sure they have our attention.

No preempt overflow. No lockdep explosion. A very fast and scalable 
read path.

Okay - we need to implement read_unlock_wait() and 
write_unlock_wait() which is similar to spin_unlock_wait(). The 
trivial first-approximation is:

	read_unlock_wait(x)
	{
		read_lock(x);
		read_unlock(x);
	}

	write_unlock_wait(x)
	{
		write_lock(x);
		write_unlock(x);
	}

Hm?

	Ingo
--
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/