[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48EB7EEA.4040809@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:23:22 -0500
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, minyard@....org,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...tta.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Convert the UDP hash lock to RCU
Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> 1) Hum, do you know why "struct file" objects dont use
> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU then,
> since we noticed a performance regression for several workloads at
> RCUification
> of file structures ?
Because my patches were not accepted that fix the issue.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/16/144
> 2) What prevents an object to be *freed* (and deleted from a hash
> chain), then
> re-allocated and inserted to another chain (different keys) ? (final
> refcount=1)
Nothing.
> If the lookup detects a key mismatch, how will it continue to the next
> item,
> since 'next' pointer will have been reused for the new chain insertion...
>
> Me confused...
If there is a mismatch then you have to do another hash lookup. Do an rcu
unlock and start over.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists