[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130611.142229.497972115797274443.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: mkubecek@...e.cz
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, jmorris@...ei.org,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: prevent fib6_run_gc() contention
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:49:12 +0200
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 01:01:14PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
>> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:07:18 +0200
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 02:26:42PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It seems to me that it would be much simpler to simply update
>> >> ip6_rt_last_gc first, that way the other threads would elide the GC
>> >> call.
>> >
>> > That was my original idea but I was afraid that while the remaining
>> > window in ip6_dst_gc() would be very short and probably safe, we could
>> > still run into problem if fib6_gc_lock was locked by some other caller
>> > of fib6_run_gc() which doesn't update net->ipv6.ip6_rt_last_gc,
>> > especially via a timer.
>>
>> Why don't you simply try it and find out?
>
> I don't have the system where the issue was observed at hand. I'll have
> to ask the customer who reported it to run the test so that it may take
> some time.
Please also take care of the issue Eric mentioned, in that some GC
calls erroneously do not update the last GC timestamp.
--
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