[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271224062.16881.605.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:47:42 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: sk_dst_cache RCUification
Le mercredi 14 avril 2010 à 07:35 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> Le mardi 13 avril 2010 à 16:11 -0700, David Miller a écrit :
> > From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> > Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:04:05 +0200
> >
> > > Instead of using rcu on whole "struct socket", my plan is to use a small
> > > structure :
> > >
> > > struct wait_queue_head_rcu {
> > > wait_queue_head_t wait;
> > > struct rcu_head rcu;
> > > } ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> > >
> > > and make sk->sk_sleep points to this 'wait' field.
> >
> > So you're relying upon the fact that in the non-FASYNC case
> > the struct socket's wait queue is never actually used?
>
> Yes, for the first phase of my work, by asynch handling might be RCUfied
> too in a second phase :)
Oh well, I did not really understood the question David, please ignore
the answer (I need to fully wake before...)
--
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