Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 7:23 am

Patrick McHardy a écrit :

Here is the patch I cooked on top of Stephen one to get proper locking.

In the "iptables -L" case, we freeze updates on all cpus to get previous
RCU behavior (not sure it is mandatory, but anyway...)

And xt_replace_table() uses same logic to make sure a cpu wont try to parse rules
and update counters while a writer is replacing tables (and thus calling
vfree() and unmapping in-use pages)

Feel free to merge this patch to Stephen one before upstream submission

Thank you

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
---
 include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h |    5 ++
 net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c    |   20 +++------
 net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c     |   24 ++++-------
 net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c    |   24 ++++-------
 net/netfilter/x_tables.c           |   55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 5 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h b/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h
index 1ff1a76..a5840a4 100644
--- a/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h
+++ b/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h
@@ -426,6 +426,11 @@ extern struct xt_table *xt_find_table_lock(struct net *net, u_int8_t af,
 					   const char *name);
 extern void xt_table_unlock(struct xt_table *t);
 
+extern void xt_tlock_lockall(void);
+extern void xt_tlock_unlockall(void);
+extern void xt_tlock_lock(void);
+extern void xt_tlock_unlock(void);
+
 extern int xt_proto_init(struct net *net, u_int8_t af);
 extern void xt_proto_fini(struct net *net, u_int8_t af);
 
diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c
index c60cc11..b561e1e 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c
@@ -231,8 +231,6 @@ static inline struct arpt_entry *get_entry(void *base, unsigned int offset)
 	return (struct arpt_entry *)(base + offset);
 }
 
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(spinlock_t, arp_tables_lock);
-
 unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 			   unsigned int hook,
 			   const struct net_device *in,
@@ -256,7 +254,7 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 	outdev = out ? out->name : nulldevname;
 
 	local_bh_disable();
-	spin_lock(&__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock));
+	xt_tlock_lock();
 	private = table->private;
 	table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
 
@@ -331,7 +329,7 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 			e = (void *)e + e->next_offset;
 		}
 	} while (!hotdrop);
-	spin_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock));
+	xt_tlock_unlock();
 	local_bh_enable();
 
 	if (hotdrop)
@@ -709,33 +707,31 @@ static void get_counters(const struct xt_table_info *t,
 {
 	unsigned int cpu;
 	unsigned int i = 0;
-	unsigned int curcpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
+	unsigned int curcpu;
 
+	xt_tlock_lockall();
 	/* Instead of clearing (by a previous call to memset())
 	 * the counters and using adds, we set the counters
 	 * with data used by 'current' CPU
-	 * We dont care about preemption here.
 	 */
-	spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, curcpu));
+	curcpu = smp_processor_id();
 	ARPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[curcpu],
 			   t->size,
 			   set_entry_to_counter,
 			   counters,
 			   &i);
-	spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, curcpu));
 
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
 		if (cpu == curcpu)
 			continue;
 		i = 0;
-		spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, cpu));
 		ARPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
 				   t->size,
 				   add_entry_to_counter,
 				   counters,
 				   &i);
-		spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(arp_tables_lock, cpu));
 	}
+	xt_tlock_unlockall();
 }
 
 static struct xt_counters *alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
@@ -1181,14 +1177,14 @@ static int do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len,
 	/* Choose the copy that is on our node */
 	local_bh_disable();
 	curcpu = smp_processor_id();
-	spin_lock(&__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock));
+	xt_tlock_lock();
 	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[curcpu];
 	ARPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(loc_cpu_entry,
 			   private->size,
 			   add_counter_to_entry,
 			   paddc,
 			   &i);
-	spin_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock));
+	xt_tlock_unlock();
 	local_bh_enable();
  unlock_up_free:
 
diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c
index cb3b779..81d173e 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c
@@ -297,7 +297,6 @@ static void trace_packet(struct sk_buff *skb,
 }
 #endif
 
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(spinlock_t, ip_tables_lock);
 
 /* Returns one of the generic firewall policies, like NF_ACCEPT. */
 unsigned int
@@ -342,7 +341,7 @@ ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 	IP_NF_ASSERT(table->valid_hooks & (1 << hook));
 
 	local_bh_disable();
-	spin_lock(&__get_cpu_var(ip_tables_lock));
+	xt_tlock_lock();
 	private = table->private;
 	table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
 
@@ -439,7 +438,7 @@ ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 			e = (void *)e + e->next_offset;
 		}
 	} while (!hotdrop);
-	spin_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(ip_tables_lock));
+	xt_tlock_unlock();
 	local_bh_enable();
 
 #ifdef DEBUG_ALLOW_ALL
@@ -895,34 +894,32 @@ get_counters(const struct xt_table_info *t,
 {
 	unsigned int cpu;
 	unsigned int i = 0;
-	unsigned int curcpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
+	unsigned int curcpu;
 
+	xt_tlock_lockall();
 	/* Instead of clearing (by a previous call to memset())
 	 * the counters and using adds, we set the counters
 	 * with data used by 'current' CPU
-	 * We dont care about preemption here.
 	 */
-	spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, curcpu));
+	curcpu = smp_processor_id();
 	IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[curcpu],
 			  t->size,
 			  set_entry_to_counter,
 			  counters,
 			  &i);
-	spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, curcpu));
 
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
 		if (cpu == curcpu)
 			continue;
 
 		i = 0;
-		spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, cpu));
 		IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
 				  t->size,
 				  add_entry_to_counter,
 				  counters,
 				  &i);
-		spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, cpu));
 	}
+	xt_tlock_unlockall();
 }
 
 static struct xt_counters * alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
@@ -1393,14 +1390,14 @@ do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len, int compat
 	local_bh_disable();
 	/* Choose the copy that is on our node */
 	curcpu = smp_processor_id();
-	spin_lock(&__get_cpu_var(ip_tables_lock));
+	xt_tlock_lock();
 	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[curcpu];
 	IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(loc_cpu_entry,
 			  private->size,
 			  add_counter_to_entry,
 			  paddc,
 			  &i);
-	spin_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(ip_tables_lock));
+	xt_tlock_unlock();
 	local_bh_enable();
 
  unlock_up_free:
@@ -2220,10 +2217,7 @@ static struct pernet_operations ip_tables_net_ops = {
 
 static int __init ip_tables_init(void)
 {
-	int cpu, ret;
-
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
-		spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(ip_tables_lock, cpu));
+	int ret;
 
 	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 ac46ca4..d6ba69e 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c
@@ -329,7 +329,6 @@ static void trace_packet(struct sk_buff *skb,
 }
 #endif
 
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(spinlock_t, ip6_tables_lock);
 
 /* Returns one of the generic firewall policies, like NF_ACCEPT. */
 unsigned int
@@ -368,7 +367,7 @@ ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 	IP_NF_ASSERT(table->valid_hooks & (1 << hook));
 
 	local_bh_disable();
-	spin_lock(&__get_cpu_var(ip6_tables_lock));
+	xt_tlock_lock();
 	private = table->private;
 	table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
 
@@ -469,7 +468,7 @@ ip6t_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
 #ifdef CONFIG_NETFILTER_DEBUG
 	((struct ip6t_entry *)table_base)->comefrom = NETFILTER_LINK_POISON;
 #endif
-	spin_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(ip6_tables_lock));
+	xt_tlock_unlock();
 	local_bh_enable();
 
 #ifdef DEBUG_ALLOW_ALL
@@ -925,33 +924,31 @@ get_counters(const struct xt_table_info *t,
 {
 	unsigned int cpu;
 	unsigned int i = 0;
-	unsigned int curcpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
+	unsigned int curcpu;
 
+	xt_tlock_lockall();
 	/* Instead of clearing (by a previous call to memset())
 	 * the counters and using adds, we set the counters
 	 * with data used by 'current' CPU
-	 * We dont care about preemption here.
 	 */
-	spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, curcpu));
+	curcpu = smp_processor_id();
 	IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[curcpu],
 			   t->size,
 			   set_entry_to_counter,
 			   counters,
 			   &i);
-	spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, curcpu));
 
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
 		if (cpu == curcpu)
 			continue;
 		i = 0;
-		spin_lock_bh(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, cpu));
 		IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries[cpu],
 				  t->size,
 				  add_entry_to_counter,
 				  counters,
 				  &i);
-		spin_unlock_bh(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, cpu));
 	}
+	xt_tlock_unlockall();
 }
 
 static struct xt_counters *alloc_counters(struct xt_table *table)
@@ -1423,14 +1420,14 @@ do_add_counters(struct net *net, void __user *user, unsigned int len,
 	local_bh_disable();
 	/* Choose the copy that is on our node */
 	curcpu = smp_processor_id();
-	spin_lock(&__get_cpu_var(ip6_tables_lock));
+	xt_tlock_lock();
 	loc_cpu_entry = private->entries[curcpu];
 	IP6T_ENTRY_ITERATE(loc_cpu_entry,
 			  private->size,
 			  add_counter_to_entry,
 			  paddc,
 			  &i);
-	spin_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(ip6_tables_lock));
+	xt_tlock_unlock();
 	local_bh_enable();
 
  unlock_up_free:
@@ -2248,10 +2245,7 @@ static struct pernet_operations ip6_tables_net_ops = {
 
 static int __init ip6_tables_init(void)
 {
-	int cpu, ret;
-
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
-		spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(ip6_tables_lock, cpu));
+	int ret;
 
 	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 0d94020..f2ad79f 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/x_tables.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/x_tables.c
@@ -670,19 +670,21 @@ xt_replace_table(struct xt_table *table,
 {
 	struct xt_table_info *oldinfo, *private;
 
+	xt_tlock_lockall();
 	/* Do the substitution. */
 	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);
+		xt_tlock_unlockall();
 		*error = -EAGAIN;
 		return NULL;
 	}
 	oldinfo = private;
 	table->private = newinfo;
 	newinfo->initial_entries = oldinfo->initial_entries;
-
+	xt_tlock_unlockall();
 	return oldinfo;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_replace_table);
@@ -1126,9 +1128,58 @@ static struct pernet_operations xt_net_ops = {
 	.init = xt_net_init,
 };
 
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(spinlock_t, xt_tables_lock);
+
+void xt_tlock_lockall(void)
+{
+	int cpu;
+
+	local_bh_disable();
+	preempt_disable();
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+		spin_lock(&per_cpu(xt_tables_lock, cpu));
+		/*
+		 * avoid preempt counter overflow
+		 */
+		preempt_enable_no_resched();
+	}
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(xt_tlock_lockall);
+
+void xt_tlock_unlockall(void)
+{
+	int cpu;
+
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+		preempt_disable();
+		spin_unlock(&per_cpu(xt_tables_lock, cpu));
+	}
+	preempt_enable();
+	local_bh_enable();
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(xt_tlock_unlockall);
+
+/*
+ * preemption should be disabled by caller
+ */
+void xt_tlock_lock(void)
+{
+	spin_lock(&__get_cpu_var(xt_tables_lock));
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(xt_tlock_lock);
+
+void xt_tlock_unlock(void)
+{
+	spin_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(xt_tables_lock));
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(xt_tlock_unlock);
+
 static int __init xt_init(void)
 {
-	int i, rv;
+	int i, rv, cpu;
+
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
+		spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(xt_tables_lock, cpu));
 
 	xt = kmalloc(sizeof(struct xt_af) * NFPROTO_NUMPROTO, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!xt)


--
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, Eric Dumazet, (Tue Apr 14, 7:23 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)