[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130327155457.15203.69656.stgit@dragon>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:55:25 +0100
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Subject: [net-next PATCH 1/3] net: frag,
avoid several CPUs grabbing same frag queue during LRU evictor loop
The LRU list is protected by its own lock, since commit 3ef0eb0db4
(net: frag, move LRU list maintenance outside of rwlock), and
no-longer by a read_lock.
This makes it possible, to remove the inet_frag_queue, which is about
to be "evicted", from the LRU list head. This avoids the problem, of
several CPUs grabbing the same frag queue.
Note, cannot remove the inet_frag_lru_del() call in fq_unlink()
called by inet_frag_kill(), because inet_frag_kill() is also used in
other situations. Thus, we use list_del_init() to allow this
double list_del to work.
Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
---
net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c | 3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c b/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c
index 2bff045..8ba548a 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c
@@ -204,6 +204,9 @@ int inet_frag_evictor(struct netns_frags *nf, struct inet_frags *f, bool force)
q = list_first_entry(&nf->lru_list,
struct inet_frag_queue, lru_list);
atomic_inc(&q->refcnt);
+ /* Remove q from list to avoid several CPUs grabbing it */
+ list_del_init(&q->lru_list);
+
spin_unlock(&nf->lru_lock);
spin_lock(&q->lock);
--
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