[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55149A99.6040704@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:47:37 -0700
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com>
To: Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
CC: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, tgraf@...g.ch
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next] fib: move fib_rules_cleanup_ops() under rtnl
lock
On 03/26/2015 04:05 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com> wrote:
>> On the other hand, the name rules_mod_lock already tells it is
>> just a protection for ops (module) register.
> I even doubt we really need rules_mod_lock, it is per netns,
> which is newly allocated when registering pernet and upper
> layer should guarantee no concurrent unregistering, so we
> probably only need to take rtnl lock.
I'm adding Thomas as he was the original author for the code and might
have a better idea of what needs to be rtnl locked and what doesn't.
You should probably CC him as well on the v2 patch.
As far as why I am so focused on moving fib4_rules_exit it is because we
don't want to call that delete function until after the table has been
cleared. Otherwise you end up triggering the external_flush and unmerge
code on a full table instead of an empty one. The result is you end up
allocating a bunch of memory before you then turn around and free it.
So even if you retain the rtnl_lock changes it would still be best to
move fib4_rules_exit call to the region after you have freed the FIB
tables, but before you free fib_table_hash.
- Alex
--
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