[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090417.045631.159492677.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: dada1@...mosbay.com
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: remove superfluous call to synchronize_net()
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:40:23 +0200
> [PATCH] net: remove superfluous call to synchronize_net()
>
> inet_register_protosw() function is responsible for adding a new
> inet protocol into a global table (inetsw[]) that is used with RCU rules.
>
> As soon as the store of the pointer is done, other cpus might see
> this new protocol in inetsw[], so we have to make sure new protocol
> is ready for use. All pending memory updates should thus be committed
> to memory before setting the pointer.
> This is correctly done using rcu_assign_pointer()
>
> synchronize_net() is typically used at unregister time, after
> unsetting the pointer, to make sure no other cpu is still using
> the object we want to dismantle. Using it at register time
> is only adding an artificial delay that could hide a real bug,
> and this bug could popup if/when synchronize_rcu() can proceed
> faster than now.
>
> This saves about 13 ms on boot time on a HZ=1000 8 cpus machine ;)
> (4 calls to inet_register_protosw(), and about 3200 us per call)
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
I think this change is fine, so I'm adding it to net-next-2.6
If you guys want to continue discussing the merits of putting
comments in every spot where we lack a RCU sync call, that's
your call. :-)
--
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