[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131021091336.GB692@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:13:36 +0200
From: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
To: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
Cc: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...hat.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] bonding: patchset for rcu use in bonding
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 04:58:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>Hi:
>
>The Patch Set will remove the invalid lock for bond work queue and replace it
>with rtnl lock, as read lock for bond could not protect slave list any more.
rtnl lock is a lot more expensive than bond lock, and not only for bond,
but for all the networking stack.
Why is the bond->lock invalid? It correctly protects slaves from being
modified concurrently.
I don't see the point in this patchset.
>
>Ding Tianhong (5):
> bonding: remove bond read lock for bond_mii_monitor()
> bonding: remove bond read lock for bond_alb_monitor()
> bonding: remove bond read lock for bond_loadbalance_arp_mon()
> bonding: remove bond read lock for bond_activebackup_arp_mon()
> bonding: remove bond read lock for bond_3ad_state_machine_handler()
>
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c | 9 ++--
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c | 20 ++------
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 100 +++++++++++++---------------------------
> 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-)
>
>--
>1.8.2.1
>
>
>
--
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