[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190411.213021.1296427633488857138.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 21:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jiaolitao@...secom.com
Cc: petrm@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
sbrivio@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vxlan: using hash_lock to protect one budegt in
vxlan_flush
From: Litao Jiao <jiaolitao@...secom.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:06:09 +0800
> The hash_lock will hold long time in vxlan_flush when stopping the
> vxlan device in which there has lots of vxlan fdb entries;it would
> affect the bh process in local cpu; and other cpu would wait for
> a long time in vxlan_snoop until the hash_lock is released;so
> using hash_lock to protect one budegt in vxlan_flush could
> reduce the continuous holding time of the lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Litao Jiao <jiaolitao@...secom.com>
Now you are doing FDB_HASH_SIZE spin lock/unlock sequences.
There has to be a better way.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists