[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <vbfimxhqr7z.fsf@mellanox.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:19:21 +0000
From: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
CC: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 10/17] net: sched: refactor tp insert/delete
for concurrent execution
On Fri 15 Feb 2019 at 23:17, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:56 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com> wrote:
>> +static bool tcf_proto_is_empty(struct tcf_proto *tp)
>> +{
>> + struct tcf_walker walker = { .fn = walker_noop, };
>> +
>> + if (tp->ops->walk) {
>> + tp->ops->walk(tp, &walker);
>> + return !walker.stop;
>> + }
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static bool tcf_proto_check_delete(struct tcf_proto *tp)
>> +{
>> + spin_lock(&tp->lock);
>> + if (tcf_proto_is_empty(tp))
>> + tp->deleting = true;
>> + spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
>> + return tp->deleting;
>
> If you use this spinlock for walking each tp data structure,
> why it is not needed for adding to/deleting filters from each
> tp?
This lock is intended to be used by unlocked classifiers and I use it in
my following flower patch set extensively. Classifiers that do not set
'unlocked' flag continue to rely on rtnl lock for synchronization.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists