[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080925152936.GF6725@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:29:36 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Use RCU for the UDP hash lock
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 03:46:20PM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>
>>> static inline void udp_lib_unhash(struct sock *sk)
>>> {
>>> - write_lock_bh(&udp_hash_lock);
>>> - if (sk_del_node_init(sk)) {
>>> + spin_lock_bh(&udp_hash_wlock);
>>> + if (sk_del_node_rcu(sk)) {
>>> inet_sk(sk)->num = 0;
>>> sock_prot_inuse_add(sock_net(sk), sk->sk_prot, -1);
>>> }
>>> - write_unlock_bh(&udp_hash_lock);
>>> + spin_unlock_bh(&udp_hash_wlock);
>>> + synchronize_sched();
>>>
>>
>> Could this be synchronize_rcu? You are using rcu_read_lock() protected
>> sections.
>>
> I meant to comment on that. I wasn't sure which to use, so I chose the
> more conservative approach. synchronize_rcu() might be appropriate.
You do indeed need to match the update-side and read-side primitives:
Update-side Read-side
synchronize_rcu() rcu_read_lock()
call_rcu() rcu_read_unlock()
call_rcu_bh() rcu_read_lock_bh()
rcu_read_unlock_bh()
synchronize_sched() preempt_disable()
preempt_enable()
[and anything else
that disables either
preemption or irqs]
synchronize_srcu() srcu_read_lock()
srcu_read_unlock()
Mixing RCU or RCU-SCHED with RCU-BH will fail in Classic RCU systems,
while mixing RCU or RCU-BH with RCU-SCHED will fail in preemptable RCU
systems. Mixing SRCU with any of the other flavors of RCU will fail
on any system.
So please match them up correctly!
Thanx, Paul
--
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