[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49ED5AFB.2090709@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:34:51 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
CC: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com,
mingo@...e.hu, jengelh@...ozas.de, r000n@...0n.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Lai Jiangshan a écrit :
>> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> +/**
>>> + * xt_table_info_rdlock_bh - recursive read lock for xt table info
>>> + *
>>> + * Table processing calls this to hold off any changes to table
>>> + * (on current CPU). Always leaves with bottom half disabled.
>>> + * If called recursively, then assumes bh/preempt already disabled.
>>> + */
>>> +void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
>>> +{
>>> + struct xt_info_lock *lock;
>>> +
>>> + preempt_disable();
>>> + lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
>>> + if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
>> Maybe I missed something. I think softirq may be still enabled here.
>> So what happen when xt_info_rdlock_bh() called recursively here?
>
> well, first time its called, you are right softirqs are enabled until
> the point we call spin_lock_bh(), right after this line :
>
>
Which context can enter the critical region?
Can irq and softirq? or softirq only?
--
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