[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090515192353.GG7745@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 15:23:53 -0400
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dropmon: add ability to detect when hardware
dropsrxpackets
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 08:11:57PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Neil Horman a écrit :
> > +static int dropmon_net_event(struct notifier_block *ev_block,
> > + unsigned long event, void *ptr)
> > +{
> > + struct net_device *dev = ptr;
> > + struct dm_hw_stat_delta *new_stat = NULL;
> > + int found = 0;
> > +
> > + switch (event) {
> > + case NETDEV_REGISTER:
> > + new_stat = kzalloc(sizeof(struct dm_hw_stat_delta), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +
> > + if (!new_stat)
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + new_stat->dev = dev;
> > + INIT_RCU_HEAD(&new_stat->rcu);
> > + spin_lock(&trace_state_lock);
> > + list_add_rcu(&new_stat->list, &hw_stats_list);
> > + spin_unlock(&trace_state_lock);
> > + break;
> > + case NETDEV_UNREGISTER:
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(new_stat, &hw_stats_list, list) {
> > + if (new_stat->dev == dev)
> > + new_stat->dev = NULL;
> > + found = 1;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
>
> This is racy, unless caller already owns a lock.
>
Racy in what way? the rcu_read_lock (As I understand it), prevents list
mutation while we're traversing it here, so we're not going to dereference a
bogus pointer while walking it. If you're worried about changing the value of a
struct member without an exclusive lock, thats safe in this case, as the worst
case scenario is that we miss detecting a hardware frame drop right before we
stop monitoring the device anyway, and I think thats better than the performance
impact of taking a lock here.
> If caller aleady owns a lock, you dont need :
>
> rcu_read_lock()
> list_for_each_entry_rcu()
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
Stephen below points out that notification callbacks always hold the rtnl_lock,
which I wasn't aware of, but I'm not sure thats ok for me to rely on here (at
least I'd rather not)
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&trace_state_lock);
> > + if (found && (trace_state == TRACE_OFF)) {
> > + list_del_rcu(&new_stat->list);
> > + call_rcu(&new_stat->rcu, free_dm_hw_stat);
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&trace_state_lock);
> > + break;
>
>
>
>
> Its not clear that you use trace_state_lock as the lock guarding all this.
>
How so?
> If this is the case I suggest a plain and straight forward :
>
> case NETDEV_UNREGISTER:
> spin_lock(&trace_state_lock);
> if (trace_state == TRACE_OFF) {
> list_for_each_entry(new_stat, &hw_stats_list, list) {
> if (new_stat->dev == dev) {
> new_stat->dev = NULL;
> list_del_rcu(&new_stat->list);
> call_rcu(&new_stat->rcu, free_dm_hw_stat);
> break;
> }
> }
> }
> spin_unlock(&trace_state_lock);
> break;
>
I was hoping to avoid holding the lock while I traversed the entire list. Not a
huge deal I suppose, but I'd like to avoid doing that if I can.
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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