[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1282313150.2484.65.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:05:50 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Wensong Zhang <wensong@...ux-vs.org>,
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>,
Paul E McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc] IPVS: convert scheduler management to RCU
Le vendredi 20 août 2010 à 21:44 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > I'm still getting my head around RCU, so review would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > It occurs to me that this code is not performance critical, so
> > perhaps simply replacing the rwlock with a spinlock would be better?
> >
> > Index: nf-next-2.6/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sched.c
> > - write_unlock_bh(&__ip_vs_sched_lock);
> > + list_del_rcu(&scheduler->n_list);
> > + spin_unlock_bh(&ip_vs_sched_mutex);
>
> Need a rcu_barrier_bh().
>
> >
> > /* decrease the module use count */
> > ip_vs_use_count_dec();
Quite frankly, if this is not performance critical, just use the
spinlock (and dont use 'mutex' in its name ;) )
Using RCU here will force at least one RCU grace period at dismantle
time...
--
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