[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1473173528.10725.14.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 07:52:08 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch net-next 5/6] net_sched: use rcu in fast path
On Thu, 2016-09-01 at 22:57 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
Missing changelog ?
Here I have no idea what you want to fix, since John already took care
all this infra.
Adding extra rcu_dereference() and rcu_read_lock() while the critical
RCU dereferences already happen in callers is not needed.
> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> ---
> net/sched/act_api.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sched/act_api.c b/net/sched/act_api.c
> index 2f8db3c..fb6ff52 100644
> --- a/net/sched/act_api.c
> +++ b/net/sched/act_api.c
> @@ -470,10 +470,14 @@ int tcf_action_exec(struct sk_buff *skb, struct tc_action **actions,
> goto exec_done;
> }
> for (i = 0; i < nr_actions; i++) {
> - const struct tc_action *a = actions[i];
> + const struct tc_action *a;
>
> + rcu_read_lock();
But the caller already has rcu_read_lock() or rcu_read_lock_bh()
This was done in commit 25d8c0d55f241ce2 ("net: rcu-ify tcf_proto")
> + a = rcu_dereference(actions[i]);
Add in your .config :
CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER=y
make C=2 M=net/sched
> repeat:
> ret = a->ops->act(skb, a, res);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> if (ret == TC_ACT_REPEAT)
> goto repeat; /* we need a ttl - JHS */
> if (ret != TC_ACT_PIPE)
I do not believe this patch is necessary.
Please add John as reviewer next time.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists