[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080112175226.7d8f9dbc@deepthought>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:52:26 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kerne@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] synchronize_rcu(): high latency on idle system
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:35:58 +0100
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:
> On Saturday 12 January 2008 18:51:35 Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:37:59AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > And yes, the
> > > > network stack shouldn't call synchronize_rcu() quite so much, but fixing that
> > > > is a little more involved.
> > >
> > > ... but the correct solution.
> >
> > There has to be at least 1 synchronize_rcu() or equivalent in the
> > unregister_netdev() path. I suspect the easiest way to fix it might be to
> > use call_rcu() to actually free the network device, as anything else will
> > limit performance of single threaded teardown (ie, when an l2tp daemon
> > gets terminated via kill -9). This means an API change that exposes
> > rcu for unregister_netdev().
>
> The call_rcu() could be in free_netdev() couldn't it?
I think it should be in netdev_unregister_kobject(). But that would
only get rid of one of the two calls to synchronize_rcu() in the unregister_netdev.
The other synchronize_rcu() is for qdisc's and not sure if that one can
be removed?
--
Stephen Hemminger <stephen.hemminger@...tta.com>
--
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