lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: correct locking in softirq
From
Date
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:54 +0100, Giacomo wrote:
> Good morning
>
> Harald Welte's "The journey of a packet through the Linux 2.6.10
> network stack" article says that packet travelling inside
> linux kernel 2.6 (the receive / input part) runs in softirq context.
>
> Hooking with netfilter's hooks in a kernel module, i need to read for
> each packet received a list of rules.
>
> Since in input and prerouting hooks the context is softirq (perhaps
> also in forward?), I need some read lock
> feature.
>
> I currently use RCU lists and, while reading lists I use
>
> READ
>
> read_lock_bh()
>
> together with list_for_each_rcu()
>
> When changing, or flushing, rules, I use
>
> WRITE
>
> spin_lock() + list_add_tail_rcu() (adding)
>
> or spin_lock() + list_for_each_entry() (for listing and then freeing
> with list_del_rcu() and call_rcu() )
>
> The question is:
>
> - is the read part above correct? - do I really need _bh()? or should
> I use simply read_lock() ?
>
> Thanks in advance

rcu_read_lock() + call_rcu() are correct, even from softirq context, and
mandatory if anything is exposed to anything other than softirq context.

rcu_read_lock_bh() + call_rcu_bh() is usable IFF the data is only ever
used from softirq.

The distinction between the two RCU variants is that the _bh variant can
have a slightly faster quiescent cycle.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-27 09:31    [W:0.039 / U:0.416 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site