netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: change spinlocks and remove timers in favor of workqueues

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bdfc5d6e0612061801wc276619l3c4b6d498ca4e8fd@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Dec 2006 21:01:17 -0500
From:	"Andy Gospodarek" <andy@...yhouse.net>
To:	"Jay Vosburgh" <fubar@...ibm.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: change spinlocks and remove timers in favor of workqueues

On 12/4/06, Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> wrote:
> Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >>         Let me see if I can dust off the extensive patch that does
> >> change the locking model; I'll see if I can bring it up to the current
> >> git and post it.
> >>
> >
> >It would seem ideal if we could combine the two into one big patch.
>
>         Appended is my working development patch for rearranging a bunch
> of stuff in bonding.  This is a work in progress, and is not likely to
> be very stable.  This largely reimplements the entire link monitor
> scheme, along with associated locking changes.  It's not split into
> functional pieces, and is just a big kitchen sink blob at the moment.
> It's still very experimental.

Jay,

Thanks for sending it.  I've finally got some time to digest it.  I
didn't get a chance to test it, but I did have a chance to take a look
at it in detail.

I certainly agree with the design points you laid out in your
description.  I like the fact that you've restructured a lot of the
code and moved the monitoring to a common place.  It is also nice to
have it in one spot so you can report link status and bond membership.
 I don't think the bh-locking is necessary since the workqueues
eliminate the possibility that you will be preempted by the bonding
driver -- I dropped them all from my patch.

Overall this seems like a good way to go, but it [obviously] seems
like it would be good to work towards this functionality rather than
simply dumping this huge blob all at once.  I would like to use a
smaller patch to switch to workqueues (my patch or a partial of yours
-- it makes no difference to me) as a start with the intent to let
that soak-in for a while and follow it with chunks that will
eventually get the entire driver closer to the functionality that your
big patch has.

Thoughts?

-andy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html