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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 9:10 am

Paul E. McKenney a écrit :


Yes, you are right, we can avoid rwlock, but use a 'recursive' lock
or spin_trylock()

We can use one counter close to the spinlock, 
no need to add one or two fields to every "thread_info"

struct rec_lock {
	spinlock_t lock;
	int        count;
};
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rec_lock, ip_tables_lock);


I also considered using regular spinlocks and spin_trylock() to "detect"
the recurse case without a global counter.

lock :
local_bh_disable();
int locked = spin_trylock(&__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock);

unlock:

if (likely(locked))
	spin_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock));
local_bh_enable();

But we would lose some runtime features, I dont feel comfortable about
this trylock version. What others people think ?


Here is the resulting patch, based on Stephen v4

(Not sure we *need* recursive spinlock for the arp_tables, but it seems
better to have an uniform implementation)


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

Yet another 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.

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.

We have to use recursive spinlocks because netfilter can sometimes
nest several calls to ipt_do_table() for a given cpu.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
---
 include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h |    5 -
 net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c    |  131 +++++++++------------------
 net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c     |  130 +++++++++-----------------
 net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c    |  127 +++++++++-----------------
 net/netfilter/x_tables.c           |   26 -----
 5 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 281 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h b/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h
index 7b1a652..1ff1a76 100644
--- a/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h
+++ b/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h
@@ -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 +431,6 @@ extern void xt_proto_fini(struct net *net, u_int8_t af);
 
 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);
 
 /*
  * This helper is performance critical and must be inlined
diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c
index 5ba533d..9f935f2 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c
@@ -231,6 +231,12 @@ static inline struct arpt_entry *get_entry(void *base, unsigned int offset)
 	return (struct arpt_entry *)(base + offset);
 }
 
+struct rec_lock {
+	spinlock_t lock;
+	int	   count; /* recursion count */
+};
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rec_lock, arp_tables_lock);
+
 unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 			   unsigned int hook,
 			   const struct net_device *in,
@@ -246,6 +252,7 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 	void *table_base;
 	const struct xt_table_info *private;
 	struct xt_target_param tgpar;
+	struct rec_lock *rl;
 
 	if (!pskb_may_pull(skb, arp_hdr_len(skb->dev)))
 		return NF_DROP;
@@ -255,7 +262,12 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 
 	rcu_read_lock_bh();
 	private = rcu_dereference(table->private);
-	table_base = rcu_dereference(private->entries[smp_processor_id()]);
+
+	rl = &__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock);
+	if (likely(rl->count++ == 0))
+		spin_lock(&rl->lock);
+
+	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 +285,7 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 
 			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);
@@ -328,7 +341,8 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 			e = (void *)e + e->next_offset;
 		}
 	} while (!hotdrop);
-
+	if (likely(--rl->count == 0))
+		spin_unlock(&rl->lock);
 	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
 
 	if (hotdrop)
@@ -716,74 +730,25 @@ static void get_counters(const struct xt_table_info *t,
 	curcpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
 
 	i = 0;
+	spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, curcpu).lock);
 	ARPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[curcpu],
 			   t->size,
 			   set_entry_to_counter,
 			   counters,
 			   &i);
+	spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, curcpu).lock);
 
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
 		if (cpu == curcpu)
 			continue;
 		i = 0;
+		spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
 		ARPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
 				   t->size,
 				   add_entry_to_counter,
 				   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 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);
+		spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -792,7 +757,6 @@ 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 +766,11 @@ static struct xt_counters *alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
 	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);
+	get_counters(private, counters);
 
 	return counters;
-
- free_counters:
-	vfree(counters);
- nomem:
-	return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 }
 
 static int copy_entries_to_user(unsigned int total_size,
@@ -1165,6 +1110,19 @@ static int do_replace(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len)
 	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)
 {
@@ -1173,7 +1131,7 @@ static int do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len,
 	struct xt_counters *paddc;
 	unsigned int num_counters;
 	const char *name;
-	int size;
+	int cpu, size;
 	void *ptmp;
 	struct xt_table *t;
 	const struct xt_table_info *private;
@@ -1224,25 +1182,25 @@ static int do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len,
 		goto free;
 	}
 
-	mutex_lock(&t->lock);
 	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()];
+	cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
+	spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
+	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[cpu];
+	i = 0;
 	ARPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(loc_cpu_entry,
 			   private->size,
 			   add_counter_to_entry,
 			   paddc,
 			   &i);
-	preempt_enable();
+	spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
+
  unlock_up_free:
-	mutex_unlock(&t->lock);
 
 	xt_table_unlock(t);
 	module_put(t->me);
@@ -1923,7 +1881,10 @@ static struct pernet_operations arp_tables_net_ops = {
 
 static int __init arp_tables_init(void)
 {
-	int ret;
+	int cpu, ret;
+
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
+		spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
 
 	ret = register_pernet_subsys(&arp_tables_net_ops);
 	if (ret < 0)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c
index 810c0b6..1368b6d 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c
@@ -297,6 +297,12 @@ static void trace_packet(struct sk_buff *skb,
 }
 #endif
 
+struct rec_lock {
+	spinlock_t lock;
+	int	   count; /* recursion count */
+};
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rec_lock, ip_tables_lock);
+
 /* Returns one of the generic firewall policies, like NF_ACCEPT. */
 unsigned int
 ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
@@ -317,6 +323,7 @@ ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 	struct xt_table_info *private;
 	struct xt_match_param mtpar;
 	struct xt_target_param tgpar;
+	struct rec_lock *rl;
 
 	/* Initialization */
 	ip = ip_hdr(skb);
@@ -341,7 +348,12 @@ ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 
 	rcu_read_lock_bh();
 	private = rcu_dereference(table->private);
-	table_base = rcu_dereference(private->entries[smp_processor_id()]);
+
+	rl = &__get_cpu_var(ip_tables_lock);
+	if (likely(rl->count++ == 0))
+		spin_lock(&rl->lock);
+
+	table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
 
 	e = get_entry(table_base, private->hook_entry[hook]);
 
@@ -436,7 +448,8 @@ ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 			e = (void *)e + e->next_offset;
 		}
 	} while (!hotdrop);
-
+	if (likely(--rl->count == 0))
+		spin_unlock(&rl->lock);
 	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
 
 #ifdef DEBUG_ALLOW_ALL
@@ -902,75 +915,25 @@ get_counters(const struct xt_table_info *t,
 	curcpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
 
 	i = 0;
+	spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, curcpu).lock);
 	IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[curcpu],
 			  t->size,
 			  set_entry_to_counter,
 			  counters,
 			  &i);
+	spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, curcpu).lock);
 
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
 		if (cpu == curcpu)
 			continue;
 		i = 0;
+		spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
 		IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
 				  t->size,
 				  add_entry_to_counter,
 				  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);
+		spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -979,7 +942,6 @@ 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
@@ -988,30 +950,11 @@ static struct xt_counters * alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
 	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);
-
-	mutex_lock(&table->lock);
-	xt_table_entry_swap_rcu(private, info);
-	synchronize_net();	/* Wait until smoke has cleared */
+		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-	get_counters(info, counters);
-	put_counters(private, counters);
-	mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
-
-	xt_free_table_info(info);
+	get_counters(private, counters);
 
 	return counters;
-
- free_counters:
-	vfree(counters);
- nomem:
-	return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 }
 
 static int
@@ -1377,6 +1320,18 @@ do_replace(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len)
 	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)
@@ -1386,7 +1341,7 @@ do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len, int compat
 	struct xt_counters *paddc;
 	unsigned int num_counters;
 	const char *name;
-	int size;
+	int cpu, size;
 	void *ptmp;
 	struct xt_table *t;
 	const struct xt_table_info *private;
@@ -1437,25 +1392,25 @@ do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len, int compat
 		goto free;
 	}
 
-	mutex_lock(&t->lock);
 	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()];
+	cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
+	spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
+	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[cpu];
+	i = 0;
 	IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(loc_cpu_entry,
 			  private->size,
 			  add_counter_to_entry,
 			  paddc,
 			  &i);
-	preempt_enable();
+	spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
+
  unlock_up_free:
-	mutex_unlock(&t->lock);
 	xt_table_unlock(t);
 	module_put(t->me);
  free:
@@ -2272,7 +2227,10 @@ static struct pernet_operations ip_tables_net_ops = {
 
 static int __init ip_tables_init(void)
 {
-	int ret;
+	int cpu, ret;
+
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
+		spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
 
 	ret = register_pernet_subsys(&ip_tables_net_ops);
 	if (ret < 0)
diff --git a/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c b/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c
index 800ae85..5b03479 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c
@@ -329,6 +329,12 @@ static void trace_packet(struct sk_buff *skb,
 }
 #endif
 
+struct rec_lock {
+	spinlock_t lock;
+	int	   count; /* recursion count */
+};
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rec_lock, ip6_tables_lock);
+
 /* Returns one of the generic firewall policies, like NF_ACCEPT. */
 unsigned int
 ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
@@ -347,6 +353,7 @@ ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 	struct xt_table_info *private;
 	struct xt_match_param mtpar;
 	struct xt_target_param tgpar;
+	struct rec_lock *rl;
 
 	/* Initialization */
 	indev = in ? in->name : nulldevname;
@@ -367,7 +374,12 @@ ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 
 	rcu_read_lock_bh();
 	private = rcu_dereference(table->private);
-	table_base = rcu_dereference(private->entries[smp_processor_id()]);
+
+	rl = &__get_cpu_var(ip_tables_lock);
+	if (likely(rl->count++ == 0))
+		spin_lock(&rl->lock);
+
+	table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
 
 	e = get_entry(table_base, private->hook_entry[hook]);
 
@@ -467,6 +479,8 @@ ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 	((struct ip6t_entry *)table_base)->comefrom = NETFILTER_LINK_POISON;
 #endif
 	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
+	if (likely(--rl->count == 0))
+		spin_unlock(&rl->lock);
 
 #ifdef DEBUG_ALLOW_ALL
 	return NF_ACCEPT;
@@ -931,73 +945,25 @@ get_counters(const struct xt_table_info *t,
 	curcpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
 
 	i = 0;
+	spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, curcpu).lock);
 	IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[curcpu],
 			   t->size,
 			   set_entry_to_counter,
 			   counters,
 			   &i);
+	spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, curcpu).lock);
 
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
 		if (cpu == curcpu)
 			continue;
 		i = 0;
+		spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
 		IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
 				  t->size,
 				  add_entry_to_counter,
 				  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 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);
+		spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -1006,7 +972,6 @@ 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 +980,11 @@ static struct xt_counters *alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
 	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);
-
-	mutex_lock(&table->lock);
-	xt_table_entry_swap_rcu(private, info);
-	synchronize_net();	/* Wait until smoke has cleared */
+		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-	get_counters(info, counters);
-	put_counters(private, counters);
-	mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
-
-	xt_free_table_info(info);
+	get_counters(private, counters);
 
 	return counters;
-
- free_counters:
-	vfree(counters);
- nomem:
-	return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 }
 
 static int
@@ -1405,6 +1351,19 @@ do_replace(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len)
 	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 +1424,26 @@ do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len,
 		goto free;
 	}
 
-	mutex_lock(&t->lock);
 	private = t->private;
 	if (private->number != num_counters) {
 		ret = -EINVAL;
 		goto unlock_up_free;
 	}
 
-	preempt_disable();
-	i = 0;
+	local_bh_disable();
 	/* Choose the copy that is on our node */
-	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[raw_smp_processor_id()];
+	spin_lock(&__get_cpu_var(ip6_tables_lock).lock);
+	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
+	i = 0;
 	IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(loc_cpu_entry,
 			  private->size,
 			  add_counter_to_entry,
 			  paddc,
 			  &i);
-	preempt_enable();
+	spin_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(ip6_tables_lock).lock);
+	local_bh_enable();
+
  unlock_up_free:
-	mutex_unlock(&t->lock);
 	xt_table_unlock(t);
 	module_put(t->me);
  free:
@@ -2298,7 +2258,10 @@ static struct pernet_operations ip6_tables_net_ops = {
 
 static int __init ip6_tables_init(void)
 {
-	int ret;
+	int cpu, ret;
+
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
+		spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, cpu).lock);
 
 	ret = register_pernet_subsys(&ip6_tables_net_ops);
 	if (ret < 0)
diff --git a/net/netfilter/x_tables.c b/net/netfilter/x_tables.c
index 509a956..adc1b11 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/x_tables.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/x_tables.c
@@ -625,20 +625,6 @@ void xt_free_table_info(struct xt_table_info *info)
 }
 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)
@@ -682,26 +668,21 @@ xt_replace_table(struct xt_table *table,
 	      struct xt_table_info *newinfo,
 	      int *error)
 {
-	struct xt_table_info *oldinfo, *private;
+	struct xt_table_info *private;
 
 	/* Do the substitution. */
-	mutex_lock(&table->lock);
 	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);
 		*error = -EAGAIN;
 		return NULL;
 	}
-	oldinfo = private;
 	rcu_assign_pointer(table->private, newinfo);
-	newinfo->initial_entries = oldinfo->initial_entries;
-	mutex_unlock(&table->lock);
+	newinfo->initial_entries = private->initial_entries;
 
-	synchronize_net();
-	return oldinfo;
+	return private;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_replace_table);
 
@@ -734,7 +715,6 @@ struct xt_table *xt_register_table(struct net *net, struct xt_table *table,
 
 	/* Simplifies replace_table code. */
 	table->private = bootstrap;
-	mutex_init(&table->lock);
 
 	if (!xt_replace_table(table, 0, newinfo, &ret))
 		goto unlock;

--
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)