On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:54 +0100, Giacomo wrote:
Good morning
Harald Welte's "The journey of a packet through the Linux 2.6.10
network stack" article says that packet travelling inside
linux kernel 2.6 (the receive / input part) runs in softirq context.
Hooking with netfilter's hooks in a kernel module, i need to read for
each packet received a list of rules.
Since in input and prerouting hooks the context is softirq (perhaps
also in forward?), I need some read lock
feature.
I currently use RCU lists and, while reading lists I use
READ
read_lock_bh()
together with list_for_each_rcu()
When changing, or flushing, rules, I use
WRITE
spin_lock() + list_add_tail_rcu() (adding)
or spin_lock() + list_for_each_entry() (for listing and then freeing
with list_del_rcu() and call_rcu() )
The question is:
- is the read part above correct? - do I really need _bh()? or should
I use simply read_lock() ?
Thanks in advance
rcu_read_lock() + call_rcu() are correct, even from softirq context, and
mandatory if anything is exposed to anything other than softirq context.
rcu_read_lock_bh() + call_rcu_bh() is usable IFF the data is only ever
used from softirq.
The distinction between the two RCU variants is that the _bh variant can
have a slightly faster quiescent cycle.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:29:06AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:54 +0100, Giacomo wrote:
quoted
Good morning
Harald Welte's "The journey of a packet through the Linux 2.6.10
network stack" article says that packet travelling inside
linux kernel 2.6 (the receive / input part) runs in softirq context.
Hooking with netfilter's hooks in a kernel module, i need to read for
each packet received a list of rules.
Since in input and prerouting hooks the context is softirq (perhaps
also in forward?), I need some read lock
feature.
I currently use RCU lists and, while reading lists I use
READ
read_lock_bh()
together with list_for_each_rcu()
When changing, or flushing, rules, I use
WRITE
spin_lock() + list_add_tail_rcu() (adding)
or spin_lock() + list_for_each_entry() (for listing and then freeing
with list_del_rcu() and call_rcu() )
The question is:
- is the read part above correct? - do I really need _bh()? or should
I use simply read_lock() ?
Thanks in advance
rcu_read_lock() + call_rcu() are correct, even from softirq context, and
mandatory if anything is exposed to anything other than softirq context.
rcu_read_lock_bh() + call_rcu_bh() is usable IFF the data is only ever
used from softirq.
If "softirq" also includes sections of local_bh_disable()ed code in
process context, also including irq-disabled code, agreed!
The distinction between the two RCU variants is that the _bh variant can
have a slightly faster quiescent cycle.
Especially when under heavy interrupt/softirq load. If a given
CPU is totally consumed handling interrupts and softirqs in a
non-CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT kernel, then the call_rcu() variant might never
invoke its callback, while the call_rcu_bh() variant would still be
able to do so in a timely fashion. The _bh() variant was inspired by
simulate DoS attacks, work by Robert Olsson and Dipankar Sarma.
Thanx, Paul