netdev - Re: Scalability of interface creation and deletion

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]

Date:	Mon, 9 May 2011 10:30:08 -0700
From:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scalability of interface creation and deletion

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> For example, in the VLAN dismantle phase (ip link del eth0.103)
> we have 3 calls to synchronize_rcu() and one call to rcu_barrier()
>
> [ the 'extra' synchronize_rcu() call comes from unregister_vlan_dev() ]
>
> Maybe with new VLAN model, we could now remove this synchronize_net()
> call from vlan code. Jesse what do you think ?
> Once vlan_group_set_device(grp, vlan_id, NULL) had been called, why
> should we respect one rcu grace period at all, given dev is queued to
> unregister_netdevice_queue() [ which has its own couples of
> synchronize_net() / rcu_barrier() ]

Yes, I agree that the extra call to synchronize_net() provides no
value, though I think that's actually been true for a while.
--
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