Thread (17 messages) 17 messages, 3 authors, 2015-03-31

Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] can: fix multiple delivery of a single CAN frame for overlapping CAN filters

From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
Date: 2015-03-31 12:32:22
Also in: linux-can

On 03/30/2015 12:41 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
On 30.03.2015 12:10, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
quoted
quoted
+	/* eliminate multiple filter matches for the same skb */
+	if (*this_cpu_ptr(ro->uniq_skb) == oskb &&
+	    ktime_equal(*this_cpu_ptr(ro->uniq_tstamp), oskb->tstamp)) {
+			return;
+	} else {
+		*this_cpu_ptr(ro->uniq_skb) = oskb;
+		*this_cpu_ptr(ro->uniq_tstamp) = oskb->tstamp;
+	}
+
What happens if you're preempted somewhere in this code, it's not
atomic? I think, if we only have to take care about the skb, an atomic
compare exchange would work. But we have two variables....If you use a
struct (see previous mail), I think the usage of get_cpu_ptr(),
git_cpu_ptr() ensures that we're not preempted.
Please check out

https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/

And especially 
https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/x173.html#LOCK-SOFTIRQS-SAME

When a softirq processes an incoming skb this remains on that selected CPU.
Okay, I was not sure about this. What about preempt_rt?
The mutithread-test from Andre just lead to the problem that the (former 
single instance) variables ro->uniq_skb and ro->uniq_tstamp have been used by 
different CPUs which made the checks unreliable.
So following the documentation and other examples in kernel source you can

- use spinlocks in can_receive() in af_can.c (instead of rcu_read_lock())
- use per-CPU variables to allow the softirq to run in parallel

Just make the variables atomic (as you suggested) is as bad as introduce 
spinlocks in can_receive() as you reduce the skb processing to just one 
thread. So at least percpu is the best for performance but needs to create a 
vector of variables (percpu).
Ack, lockless atomic-compare-exchange is only possbile for a single
variable.
Putting a struct into these percpu handling can be done - but does it increase 
the readability in this case?
It saves ressources, 1 pointer instead of 3 (considering both of your
patches) and only 1 allocation.

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |

Attachments

Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help