Re: [PATCH RFC 01/26] netfilter: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair
From: Paul E. McKenney <hidden>
Date: 2017-07-02 02:00:54
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml, netfilter-devel
On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 09:44:12PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
Hi Paul, On 06/30/2017 02:01 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:quoted
There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics, and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock pair. This commit therefore replaces the spin_unlock_wait() calls in nf_conntrack_lock() and nf_conntrack_all_lock() with spin_lock() followed immediately by spin_unlock(). These functions do not appear to be invoked on any fastpaths. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney<redacted> Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso<pablo@netfilter.org> Cc: Jozsef Kadlecsik<redacted> Cc: Florian Westphal<fw@strlen.de> Cc: "David S. Miller"<davem@davemloft.net> Cc:[off-list ref] Cc:[off-list ref] Cc:[off-list ref] Cc: Will Deacon<redacted> Cc: Peter Zijlstra<peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Alan Stern<stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Andrea Parri<parri.andrea@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> --- net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c | 26 ++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c index e847dbaa0c6b..9f997859d160 100644 --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c@@ -99,15 +99,11 @@ void nf_conntrack_lock(spinlock_t *lock) __acquires(lock) spin_lock(lock); while (unlikely(nf_conntrack_locks_all)) {I think here an ACQUIRE is missing.quoted
spin_unlock(lock); - - /* - * Order the 'nf_conntrack_locks_all' load vs. the - * spin_unlock_wait() loads below, to ensure - * that 'nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock' is indeed held: - */ - smp_rmb(); /* spin_lock(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock) */ - spin_unlock_wait(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock); + /* Wait for nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock holder to release ... */ + spin_lock(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock); + spin_unlock(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock); spin_lock(lock); + /* ... and retry. */ } }As far as I see, nf_conntrack_locks[] nests inside nf_conntrack_lock_all_lock. So spin_lock(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock); spin_lock(lock); spin_unlock(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock); can replace the retry logic. Correct? Then what about the attached patch?
At first glance, it looks correct to me, thank you! I have replaced my patch with this one for testing and further review. Thanx, Paul
--
Manfred
quoted hunk
quoted
From 453e7a77f3756d939c754031b092cbdfbd149559 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001From: Manfred Spraul <redacted> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 07:17:55 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core: Fix net_conntrack_lock() As we want to remove spin_unlock_wait() and replace it with explicit spin_lock()/spin_unlock() calls, we can use this to simplify the locking. In addition: - Reading nf_conntrack_locks_all needs ACQUIRE memory ordering. - The new code avoids the backwards loop. Only slightly tested, I did not manage to trigger calls to nf_conntrack_all_lock(). Fixes: b16c29191dc8 Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <redacted> Cc: <redacted> Cc: Sasha Levin <redacted> Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org --- net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c index e847dba..1193565 100644 --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c@@ -96,19 +96,24 @@ static struct conntrack_gc_work conntrack_gc_work; void nf_conntrack_lock(spinlock_t *lock) __acquires(lock) { + /* 1) Acquire the lock */ spin_lock(lock); - while (unlikely(nf_conntrack_locks_all)) { - spin_unlock(lock); - /* - * Order the 'nf_conntrack_locks_all' load vs. the - * spin_unlock_wait() loads below, to ensure - * that 'nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock' is indeed held: - */ - smp_rmb(); /* spin_lock(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock) */ - spin_unlock_wait(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock); - spin_lock(lock); - } + /* 2) read nf_conntrack_locks_all, with ACQUIRE semantics */ + if (likely(smp_load_acquire(&nf_conntrack_locks_all) == false)) + return; + + /* fast path failed, unlock */ + spin_unlock(lock); + + /* Slow path 1) get global lock */ + spin_lock(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock); + + /* Slow path 2) get the lock we want */ + spin_lock(lock); + + /* Slow path 3) release the global lock */ + spin_unlock(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nf_conntrack_lock);@@ -149,18 +154,17 @@ static void nf_conntrack_all_lock(void) int i; spin_lock(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock); - nf_conntrack_locks_all = true; - /* - * Order the above store of 'nf_conntrack_locks_all' against - * the spin_unlock_wait() loads below, such that if - * nf_conntrack_lock() observes 'nf_conntrack_locks_all' - * we must observe nf_conntrack_locks[] held: - */ - smp_mb(); /* spin_lock(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock) */ + nf_conntrack_locks_all = true; for (i = 0; i < CONNTRACK_LOCKS; i++) { - spin_unlock_wait(&nf_conntrack_locks[i]); + spin_lock(&nf_conntrack_locks[i]); + + /* This spin_unlock provides the "release" to ensure that + * nf_conntrack_locks_all==true is visible to everyone that + * acquired spin_lock(&nf_conntrack_locks[]). + */ + spin_unlock(&nf_conntrack_locks[i]); } }-- 2.9.4