[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180323151522.2d3dde07@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:15:22 +0100
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
BjörnTöpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
magnus.karlsson@...el.com, eugenia@...lanox.com,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>, galp@...lanox.com,
Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [bpf-next V5 PATCH 11/15] page_pool: refurbish version of
page_pool code
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:29:55 -0700
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On 03/23/2018 05:18 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> > +
> > +void page_pool_destroy_rcu(struct page_pool *pool)
> > +{
> > + call_rcu(&pool->rcu, __page_pool_destroy_rcu);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(page_pool_destroy_rcu);
> >
>
>
> Why do we need to respect one rcu grace period before destroying a page pool ?
Due to previous allocator ID patch, which can have a pointer reference
to a page_pool, and the allocator ID lookup uses RCU.
> In any case, this should be called page_pool_destroy()
Okay.
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists