[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100123.022210.56302976.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:22:10 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: shemminger@...tta.com
Cc: djohnson@...rentnetworks.com, sakkiped@...rentnetworks.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Deadlock in IPv6 code while garbage collection on the rwlock
protecting the routing tree.
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:13:09 -0800
> With RCU, you can safely acquire a spinlock inside rcu_read_lock
> section. The only issue is that the entry being modified might already
> be in process of being deleted (ie. modifying a dead route).
>
> Probably simpler to just get rid of rwlock entirely, go with a spinlock
> for now. Reader/writer locks are slower than spin locks and even if
> lock is highly read contended, it is not held for long.
>
> IPV6 routing table is using much simpler algorithms on the assumption
> that IPV6 was going to solve the CIDR address explosion problem. That
> assumption will probably not hold up, and having a trie (TRASH) version
> of IPV6 routing table with RCU would be a good research project for
> some graduate student.
This is all well and good, but meanwhile someone does need to
fix the deadlock originally reported here :-)
--
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