[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100310162658.GI6267@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:26:58 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/13] bridge: Add core IGMP snooping support
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:07:29PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 05:13:18AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > If CONFIG_PROVE_RCU is set, rcu_dereference() checks for rcu_read_lock()
> > and rcu_dereference_bh() checks for either rcu_read_lock_bh() or BH
> > being disabled. Yes, this is a bit restrictive, but there are a few too
> > many to check by hand these days.
>
> Fair enough. We should get those fixed then. In fact I reckon
> most of them should be using the BH variant so we might be able
> to kill a few rcu_read_lock's which would be a real gain.
I have -tip commit a898def29e4119bc01ebe7ca97423181f4c0ea2d that
converts some of the rcu_dereference()s in net/core/filter.c,
net/core/dev.c, net/decnet/dn_route.c, net/packet/af_packet.c, and
net/ipv4/route.c to rcu_dereference_bh().
How should we coordinate the removal of the rcu_read_lock() calls?
Thanx, Paul
--
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