[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220209074533.hxjhz7xiqfpdpbgq@pengutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 08:45:33 +0100
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] can: gw: use call_rcu() instead of costly
synchronize_rcu()
On 08.02.2022 20:27:31, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>
>
> On 07.02.22 20:07, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> >
> > Commit fb8696ab14ad ("can: gw: synchronize rcu operations
> > before removing gw job entry") added three synchronize_rcu() calls
> > to make sure one rcu grace period was observed before freeing
> > a "struct cgw_job" (which are tiny objects).
> >
> > This should be converted to call_rcu() to avoid adding delays
> > in device / network dismantles.
> >
> > Use the rcu_head that was already in struct cgw_job,
> > not yet used.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
>
> Tested-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Applied to linux-can-next/testing.
There are several more synchronize_rcu() in net/can. Oliver, can you
create similar patches for those?
regards,
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists