[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180731132701.522b55e2@xeon-e3>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 13:27:01 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] net: WireGuard secure network tunnel
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:11:02 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> +#define push(stack, p, len) ({ \
> + if (rcu_access_pointer(p)) { \
> + BUG_ON(len >= 128); \
> + stack[len++] = rcu_dereference_protected(p, lockdep_is_held(lock)); \
> + } \
> + true; \
> +})
> +static void free_root_node(struct allowedips_node __rcu *top, struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> + struct allowedips_node *stack[128], *node;
> + unsigned int len;
> +
> + for (len = 0, push(stack, top, len); len > 0 && (node = stack[--len]) && push(stack, node->bit[0], len) && push(stack, node->bit[1], len);)
> + call_rcu_bh(&node->rcu, node_free_rcu);
> +}
This looks like you are doing traversal to free a tree. The stack is there so that you do the rcu callbacks
in the proper order. Won't this create an lot of RCU work at once?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists