Subject: Re: [RFT 3/4] netfilter: use sequence number synchronization for counters

From: Eric Dumazet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:35:26 +0100

Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:17:04 +0100
> Eric Dumazet <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>   
>> Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
>>     
>>> Change how synchronization is done on the iptables counters. Use seqcount
>>> wrapper instead of depending on reader/writer lock.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>> --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c	2009-01-27 14:48:41.567879095 -0800
>>> +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c	2009-01-27 15:45:05.766673246 -0800
>>> @@ -366,7 +366,9 @@ ipt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
>>>  			if (IPT_MATCH_ITERATE(e, do_match, skb, &mtpar) != 0)
>>>  				goto no_match;
>>>  
>>> +			write_seqcount_begin(&e->seq);
>>>  			ADD_COUNTER(e->counters, ntohs(ip->tot_len), 1);
>>> +			write_seqcount_end(&e->seq);
>>>   
>>>       
>> Its not very good to do it like this, (one seqcount_t per rule per cpu)
>>     
>
> If we use one count per table, that solves it, but it becomes a hot
> spot, and on an active machine will never settle.
>
>   
One seqcount per table and per cpu.
Only one cpu (the owner) will need to change the seqcount (one increment 
when entering ipt_do_table(), one increment when leaving)

This location is only read by the thread doing the "iptables -L". We 
dont care it spends a few cycles, it's already a big cruncher.

I dont understand your concern, what do you mean by "never settle" ?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to [email-masked]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html