On Wed 16 May 2018 at 12:26, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
> Wed, May 16, 2018 at 01:55:06PM CEST, vla...@mellanox.com wrote:
>>
>>On Wed 16 May 2018 at 09:59, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>> Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:27:13PM CEST, vla...@mellanox.com wrote:
>>>>Retry check-insert sequence in action init functions if action with same
>>>>index was inserted concurrently.
>>>>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com>
>>>>---
>>>> net/sched/act_bpf.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_connmark.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_csum.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_gact.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_ife.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_ipt.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_mirred.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_nat.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_pedit.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_police.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_sample.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_simple.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_skbedit.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_skbmod.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_tunnel_key.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>>> net/sched/act_vlan.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>>> 16 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/net/sched/act_bpf.c b/net/sched/act_bpf.c
>>>>index 5554bf7..7e20fdc 100644
>>>>--- a/net/sched/act_bpf.c
>>>>+++ b/net/sched/act_bpf.c
>>>>@@ -299,10 +299,16 @@ static int tcf_bpf_init(struct net *net, struct
>>>>nlattr *nla,
>>>>
>>>> parm = nla_data(tb[TCA_ACT_BPF_PARMS]);
>>>>
>>>>+replay:
>>>> if (!tcf_idr_check(tn, parm->index, act, bind)) {
>>>> ret = tcf_idr_create(tn, parm->index, est, act,
>>>> &act_bpf_ops, bind, true);
>>>>- if (ret < 0)
>>>>+ /* Action with specified index was created concurrently.
>>>>+ * Check again.
>>>>+ */
>>>>+ if (parm->index && ret == -ENOSPC)
>>>>+ goto replay;
>>>>+ else if (ret)
>>>
>>> Hmm, looks like you are doing the same/very similar thing in every act
>>> code. I think it would make sense to introduce a helper function for
>>> this purpose.
>>
>>This code uses goto so it can't be easily refactored into standalone
>>function. Could you specify which part of this code you suggest to
>>extract?
>
> Hmm, looking at the code, I think that what would help is to have a
> helper that would atomically check if index exists and if not, it would
> allocate one. Something like:
>
>
> int tcf_idr_check_alloc(struct tc_action_net *tn, u32 *index,
> struct tc_action **a, int bind)
> {
> struct tcf_idrinfo *idrinfo = tn->idrinfo;
> struct tc_action *p;
> int err;
>
> spin_lock(&idrinfo->lock);
> if (*index) {
> p = idr_find(&idrinfo->action_idr, *index);
> if (p) {
> if (bind)
> p->tcfa_bindcnt++;
> p->tcfa_refcnt++;
> *a = p;
> err = 0;
> } else {
> *a = NULL;
> err = idr_alloc_u32(idr, NULL, index,
> *index, GFP_ATOMIC);
> }
> } else {
> *index = 1;
> *a = NULL;
> err = idr_alloc_u32(idr, NULL, index, UINT_MAX, GFP_ATOMIC);
> }
> spin_unlock(&idrinfo->lock);
> return err;
> }
>
> The act code would just check if "a" is NULL and if so, it would call
> tcf_idr_create() with allocated index as arg.
What about multiple actions that have arbitrary code between initial
check and idr allocation that is currently inside tcf_idr_create()?
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
