netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] Phonet: use rwlock for sockets list

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4AF42C07.4050008@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:00:39 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@...lab.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Rémi Denis-Courmont 
	<remi.denis-courmont@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Phonet: use rwlock for sockets list

Rémi Denis-Courmont a écrit :
> It seems better than a spinlock, assuming that sockets are
> created/destroyed more seldom than they receive packets. And then
> sk_for_each_rcu does not exist. I am sure there is a good reason for that,
> though I wouldn't know. I guess I should try to use RCU hlist_nulls then?
> 

spin_lock()/spin_unlock() is faster than read_lock()/read_unlock(), unless
there is contention.  (two atomic ops instead of one)

So, unless you have a particular performance problem, it's actually
better to use a spinlock.

If you do have performance problem, a RCU conversion is better than rwlock.
I can do RCU conversion if you ask me...
--
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