[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C278B79D.F53F%keir@xensource.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:07:09 +0100
From: Keir Fraser <keir@...source.com>
To: Kieran Mansley <kmansley@...arflare.com>,
Keir Fraser <keir@...source.com>
CC: <muli@...ibm.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
<herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/4] [Net] Support Xen accelerated
network plugin modules
On 22/5/07 13:44, "Kieran Mansley" <kmansley@...arflare.com> wrote:
>> Eagerly zap the function pointers, then wait one RCU period so every CPU
>> goes through a quiescent point before unloading the module?
>>
>> -- Keir
>
> Am I right in thinking that if one of the functions that was protected
> by RCU was to block, that would be a bad thing? Clearly the data path
> hooks can't/don't block, but I'm not sure it's so obvious for things
> like probing a new device.
Are there still module reference counts? If so, functions which may block
can manipulate their module's reference count.
Or if not, I guess the accelerator module can have a private reference count
checked by whatever unload function gets called from the RCU subsystem. So
that unload becomes deferred until *both* an RCU phase has passed *and* a
reference count has fallen to zero.
-- Keir
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists