[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <31736d5e-8e14-67f2-9780-9ba6a6f10f4d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:21:17 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
alexandre.besnard@...tathome.com, davem@...emloft.net,
ecree@...arflare.com, jiri@...lanox.com, petrm@...lanox.com,
alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, amritha.nambiar@...el.com,
lirongqing@...du.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: check negative value for signed refcnt
On 01/31/2019 07:15 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 01/31/2019 05:49 AM, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>
>> 2)Not related to your patch -- it looks like we have problem in existing
>> code with this netdev_refcnt_read(). It does not imply a memory ordering
>> or some guarantees about reading percpu values. For example, in generic
>> code struct percpu_ref switches a counter into atomic mode before it checks
>> for the last reference. But there is nothing in netdev_refcnt_read().
>
> Well, if we read an old value here, after a full and expensive synchronize_net(),
> then we would have lot more problems than simply having a second round in
> netdev_wait_allrefs()
>
>
percpu_ref was added more recently than the netdev_refcnt stuff, and is
interesting for users wanting a synchronous wait for the refcnt reaching 0.
netdev_wait_allrefs() was designed to be asynchronous, so that we at least release
RTNL (and current cpu) when something is wrong and a device can not be dismantled.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists