[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5264F397.50608@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:27:51 +0800
From: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
To: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.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 2013/10/21 17:13, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> 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.
>
yes, rtnl lock is a big lock, but I think bond->lock could not protect
bond_for_each_slave any more, am I miss something?
Ding
>>
>> 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