* [PATCH v3 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier()
2009-06-25 9:29 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier() and fix kmem_cache_create flags Jesper Dangaard Brouer
@ 2009-06-25 10:02 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-06-25 14:33 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-06-25 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier() and fix kmem_cache_create flags Patrick McHardy
2009-06-25 19:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer @ 2009-06-25 10:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick McHardy
Cc: Christoph Lameter, linux-mm, David S. Miller, Paul E. McKenney,
netdev, linux-kernel, dougthompson, bluesmoke-devel, axboe,
christine.caulfield, Trond.Myklebust, linux-wireless, johannes,
yoshfuji, shemminger, linux-nfs, bfields, neilb, linux-ext4,
tytso, adilger, netfilter-devel
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 11:29 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> Should I make two different patchs?
Here is the single patch... Patrick tell me if you want it split up?
[PATCH v3 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier()
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@comx.dk>
RCU barriers, rcu_barrier(), is inserted two places.
In nf_conntrack_expect.c nf_conntrack_expect_fini() before the
kmem_cache_destroy(). Firstly to make sure the callback to the
nf_ct_expect_free_rcu() code is still around. Secondly because I'm
unsure about the consequence of having in flight
nf_ct_expect_free_rcu/kmem_cache_free() calls while doing a
kmem_cache_destroy() slab destroy.
And in nf_conntrack_extend.c nf_ct_extend_unregister(), inorder to
wait for completion of callbacks to __nf_ct_ext_free_rcu(), which is
invoked by __nf_ct_ext_add(). It might be more efficient to call
rcu_barrier() in nf_conntrack_core.c nf_conntrack_cleanup_net(), but
thats make it more difficult to read the code (as the callback code
in located in nf_conntrack_extend.c).
Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@comx.dk>
---
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c | 4 +++-
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c
index afde8f9..2032dfe 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c
@@ -617,8 +617,10 @@ err1:
void nf_conntrack_expect_fini(struct net *net)
{
exp_proc_remove(net);
- if (net_eq(net, &init_net))
+ if (net_eq(net, &init_net)) {
+ rcu_barrier(); /* Wait for call_rcu() before destroy */
kmem_cache_destroy(nf_ct_expect_cachep);
+ }
nf_ct_free_hashtable(net->ct.expect_hash, net->ct.expect_vmalloc,
nf_ct_expect_hsize);
}
diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c
index 4b2c769..fef95be 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c
@@ -186,6 +186,6 @@ void nf_ct_extend_unregister(struct nf_ct_ext_type *type)
rcu_assign_pointer(nf_ct_ext_types[type->id], NULL);
update_alloc_size(type);
mutex_unlock(&nf_ct_ext_type_mutex);
- synchronize_rcu();
+ rcu_barrier(); /* Wait for completion of call_rcu()'s */
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nf_ct_extend_unregister);
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier()
2009-06-25 10:02 ` [PATCH v3 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier() Jesper Dangaard Brouer
@ 2009-06-25 14:33 ` Patrick McHardy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2009-06-25 14:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jdb
Cc: Christoph Lameter, linux-mm, David S. Miller, Paul E. McKenney,
netdev, linux-kernel, dougthompson, bluesmoke-devel, axboe,
christine.caulfield, Trond.Myklebust, linux-wireless, johannes,
yoshfuji, shemminger, linux-nfs, bfields, neilb, linux-ext4,
tytso, adilger, netfilter-devel
Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> RCU barriers, rcu_barrier(), is inserted two places.
>
> In nf_conntrack_expect.c nf_conntrack_expect_fini() before the
> kmem_cache_destroy(). Firstly to make sure the callback to the
> nf_ct_expect_free_rcu() code is still around. Secondly because I'm
> unsure about the consequence of having in flight
> nf_ct_expect_free_rcu/kmem_cache_free() calls while doing a
> kmem_cache_destroy() slab destroy.
>
> And in nf_conntrack_extend.c nf_ct_extend_unregister(), inorder to
> wait for completion of callbacks to __nf_ct_ext_free_rcu(), which is
> invoked by __nf_ct_ext_add(). It might be more efficient to call
> rcu_barrier() in nf_conntrack_core.c nf_conntrack_cleanup_net(), but
> thats make it more difficult to read the code (as the callback code
> in located in nf_conntrack_extend.c).
Applied, thanks Jesper.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier() and fix kmem_cache_create flags
2009-06-25 9:29 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier() and fix kmem_cache_create flags Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-06-25 10:02 ` [PATCH v3 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier() Jesper Dangaard Brouer
@ 2009-06-25 13:59 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-06-25 19:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2009-06-25 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jdb
Cc: Christoph Lameter, linux-mm, David S. Miller, Paul E. McKenney,
netdev, linux-kernel, dougthompson, bluesmoke-devel, axboe,
christine.caulfield, Trond.Myklebust, linux-wireless, johannes,
yoshfuji, shemminger, linux-nfs, bfields, neilb, linux-ext4,
tytso, adilger, netfilter-devel
Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 15:58 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>>> Adjusting SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU flags.
>>>
>>> kmem_cache_create("nf_conntrack", ...) does not need the
>>> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU flag.
>> It does need it. We're using it instead of call_rcu() for conntracks.
>>
>>> But the
>>> kmem_cache_create("nf_conntrack_expect", ...) should use the
>>> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU flag, because it uses a call_rcu() callback to
>>> invoke kmem_cache_free().
>> No, using call_rcu() means we don't need SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU.
>> Please see the note in include/linux/slab.h.
>
> Oh, I see. The description is some what cryptic, but I think I got it,
> after reading through the code.
>
> BUT this still means that we need to do rcu_barrier() if the
> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU is NOT set and we do call_rcu() our self.
Correct, in that case its necessary.
> My understanding for the code is (please feel free to correct me): that
> if SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU _is_ set, then the __cache_shrink() call will
> call drain_freelist(), which calls slab_destroy().
>
> If SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU _is_ set, then slab_destroy() will then start a
> call_rcu() callback to kmem_rcu_free() which calls kmem_cache_free().
> Given that the callback code kmem_rcu_free() is not removed, we are not
> worried about unloading the module at this point.
Yep, thats my understanding as well.
> I'm a bit worried about what happens if __kmem_cache_destroy() is
> invoked and there is still callbacks for kmem_rcu_free() in flight?
> The synchronize_rcu() between __cache_shrink() and
> __kmem_cache_destroy() should perhaps be changed to rcu_barrier()?
>
> But I'm sure that the SLAB/MM guys will tell me that this case is
> handled (and something about its unlinked from the appropiate
> lists)??? ;-)
I'll leave that question to the MM guys :)
>>> RCU barriers, rcu_barrier(), is inserted two places.
>>>
>>> In nf_conntrack_expect.c nf_conntrack_expect_fini() before the
>>> kmem_cache_destroy(), even though the use of the SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU
>>> flag, because slub does not (currently) handle rcu sync correctly.
>> I think that should be fixed in slub then.
>
> I don't think so, we/I'm are talking about "nf_conntrack_expect" and not
> "nf_conntrack" slab. Clearly the slab "nf_conntrack" is handled
> correcly (according to description above).
>
> We still need to make sure the callbacks for "nf_conntrack_expect", are
> done before unloading/removing the code they are about to call.
Yes, my response was referring to potential sl*b bugs, but
you're correct, we do need rcu_barrier() for expectations.
>>> And in nf_conntrack_extend.c nf_ct_extend_unregister(), inorder to
>>> wait for completion of callbacks to __nf_ct_ext_free_rcu(), which is
>>> invoked by __nf_ct_ext_add(). It might be more efficient to call
>>> rcu_barrier() in nf_conntrack_core.c nf_conntrack_cleanup_net(), but
>>> thats make it more difficult to read the code (as the callback code
>>> in located in nf_conntrack_extend.c).
>> This one looks fine.
>
> Should I make two different patchs?
Either way is fine.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier() and fix kmem_cache_create flags
2009-06-25 9:29 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier() and fix kmem_cache_create flags Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-06-25 10:02 ` [PATCH v3 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier() Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-06-25 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier() and fix kmem_cache_create flags Patrick McHardy
@ 2009-06-25 19:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2009-06-25 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer
Cc: Patrick McHardy, Christoph Lameter, linux-mm, David S. Miller,
netdev, linux-kernel, dougthompson, bluesmoke-devel, axboe,
christine.caulfield, Trond.Myklebust, linux-wireless, johannes,
yoshfuji, shemminger, linux-nfs, bfields, neilb, linux-ext4,
tytso, adilger, netfilter-devel
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:29:13AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 15:58 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > Adjusting SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU flags.
> > >
> > > kmem_cache_create("nf_conntrack", ...) does not need the
> > > SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU flag.
> >
> > It does need it. We're using it instead of call_rcu() for conntracks.
> >
> > > But the
> > > kmem_cache_create("nf_conntrack_expect", ...) should use the
> > > SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU flag, because it uses a call_rcu() callback to
> > > invoke kmem_cache_free().
> >
> > No, using call_rcu() means we don't need SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU.
> > Please see the note in include/linux/slab.h.
>
> Oh, I see. The description is some what cryptic, but I think I got it,
> after reading through the code.
>
> BUT this still means that we need to do rcu_barrier() if the
> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU is NOT set and we do call_rcu() our self.
>
> Look at: slab.c kmem_cache_destroy()
>
> void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> {
> ...<cut>...
> if (__cache_shrink(cachep)) {
> slab_error(cachep, "Can't free all objects");
> ...<cut>...
> return;
> }
>
> if (unlikely(cachep->flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU))
> synchronize_rcu();
>
> __kmem_cache_destroy(cachep);
> ...<cut>...
> }
>
> My understanding for the code is (please feel free to correct me): that
> if SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU _is_ set, then the __cache_shrink() call will
> call drain_freelist(), which calls slab_destroy().
>
> If SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU _is_ set, then slab_destroy() will then start a
> call_rcu() callback to kmem_rcu_free() which calls kmem_cache_free().
> Given that the callback code kmem_rcu_free() is not removed, we are not
> worried about unloading the module at this point.
>
> I'm a bit worried about what happens if __kmem_cache_destroy() is
> invoked and there is still callbacks for kmem_rcu_free() in flight?
> The synchronize_rcu() between __cache_shrink() and
> __kmem_cache_destroy() should perhaps be changed to rcu_barrier()?
It looks to me like it should, good catch!!! I sent a proposed patch
to the maintainers.
Thanx, Paul
> But I'm sure that the SLAB/MM guys will tell me that this case is
> handled (and something about its unlinked from the appropiate
> lists)??? ;-)
>
>
> > > RCU barriers, rcu_barrier(), is inserted two places.
> > >
> > > In nf_conntrack_expect.c nf_conntrack_expect_fini() before the
> > > kmem_cache_destroy(), even though the use of the SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU
> > > flag, because slub does not (currently) handle rcu sync correctly.
> >
> > I think that should be fixed in slub then.
>
> I don't think so, we/I'm are talking about "nf_conntrack_expect" and not
> "nf_conntrack" slab. Clearly the slab "nf_conntrack" is handled
> correcly (according to description above).
>
> We still need to make sure the callbacks for "nf_conntrack_expect", are
> done before unloading/removing the code they are about to call.
>
>
> > > And in nf_conntrack_extend.c nf_ct_extend_unregister(), inorder to
> > > wait for completion of callbacks to __nf_ct_ext_free_rcu(), which is
> > > invoked by __nf_ct_ext_add(). It might be more efficient to call
> > > rcu_barrier() in nf_conntrack_core.c nf_conntrack_cleanup_net(), but
> > > thats make it more difficult to read the code (as the callback code
> > > in located in nf_conntrack_extend.c).
> >
> > This one looks fine.
>
> Should I make two different patchs?
>
>
> > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> > > index 5f72b94..438ce84 100644
> > > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> > > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> > > @@ -1242,7 +1242,7 @@ static int nf_conntrack_init_init_net(void)
> > >
> > > nf_conntrack_cachep = kmem_cache_create("nf_conntrack",
> > > sizeof(struct nf_conn),
> > > - 0, SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, NULL);
> > > + 0, 0, NULL);
> > > if (!nf_conntrack_cachep) {
> > > printk(KERN_ERR "Unable to create nf_conn slab cache\n");
> > > ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c
> > > index afde8f9..56227c2 100644
> > > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c
> > > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c
> > > @@ -593,7 +593,7 @@ int nf_conntrack_expect_init(struct net *net)
> > > if (net_eq(net, &init_net)) {
> > > nf_ct_expect_cachep = kmem_cache_create("nf_conntrack_expect",
> > > sizeof(struct nf_conntrack_expect),
> > > - 0, 0, NULL);
> > > + 0, SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, NULL);
> > > if (!nf_ct_expect_cachep)
> > > goto err2;
> > > }
> > > @@ -617,8 +617,15 @@ err1:
> > > void nf_conntrack_expect_fini(struct net *net)
> > > {
> > > exp_proc_remove(net);
> > > - if (net_eq(net, &init_net))
> > > + if (net_eq(net, &init_net)) {
> > > + /* hawk@comx.dk 2009-06-24: The rcu_barrier() can be
> > > + * removed once the sl*b allocators has been fixed
> > > + * regarding handling the SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU flag
> > > + * correctly.
> > > + */
> > > + rcu_barrier(); /* Wait for call_rcu() before destroy */
> > > kmem_cache_destroy(nf_ct_expect_cachep);
> > > + }
> > > nf_ct_free_hashtable(net->ct.expect_hash, net->ct.expect_vmalloc,
> > > nf_ct_expect_hsize);
> > > }
> > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c
> > > index 4b2c769..fef95be 100644
> > > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c
> > > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c
> > > @@ -186,6 +186,6 @@ void nf_ct_extend_unregister(struct nf_ct_ext_type *type)
> > > rcu_assign_pointer(nf_ct_ext_types[type->id], NULL);
> > > update_alloc_size(type);
> > > mutex_unlock(&nf_ct_ext_type_mutex);
> > > - synchronize_rcu();
> > > + rcu_barrier(); /* Wait for completion of call_rcu()'s */
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nf_ct_extend_unregister);
> > >
> >
> --
> Med venlig hilsen / Best regards
> Jesper Brouer
> ComX Networks A/S
> Linux Network developer
> Cand. Scient Datalog / MSc.
> Author of http://adsl-optimizer.dk
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread