[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d90b617800cedf03ce8d93d2df61a724f2775f56.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:47:23 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
<kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 04/14] af_unix: Bulk update
unix_tot_inflight/unix_inflight when queuing skb.
On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 13:39 -0800, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> diff --git a/net/unix/garbage.c b/net/unix/garbage.c
> index 96d0b1db3638..e8fe08796d02 100644
> --- a/net/unix/garbage.c
> +++ b/net/unix/garbage.c
> @@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ static void unix_free_vertices(struct scm_fp_list *fpl)
> }
>
> DEFINE_SPINLOCK(unix_gc_lock);
> +unsigned int unix_tot_inflight;
>
> void unix_add_edges(struct scm_fp_list *fpl, struct unix_sock *receiver)
> {
> @@ -172,7 +173,10 @@ void unix_add_edges(struct scm_fp_list *fpl, struct unix_sock *receiver)
> unix_add_edge(fpl, edge);
> } while (i < fpl->count_unix);
>
> + WRITE_ONCE(unix_tot_inflight, unix_tot_inflight + fpl->count_unix);
> out:
> + WRITE_ONCE(fpl->user->unix_inflight, fpl->user->unix_inflight + fpl->count);
I'm unsure if later patches will shed some light, but why the above
statement is placed _after_ the 'out' label? fpl->count will be 0 in
such path, and the updated not needed. Why don't you place it before
the mentioned label?
> +
> spin_unlock(&unix_gc_lock);
>
> fpl->inflight = true;
> @@ -195,7 +199,10 @@ void unix_del_edges(struct scm_fp_list *fpl)
> unix_del_edge(fpl, edge);
> } while (i < fpl->count_unix);
>
> + WRITE_ONCE(unix_tot_inflight, unix_tot_inflight - fpl->count_unix);
> out:
> + WRITE_ONCE(fpl->user->unix_inflight, fpl->user->unix_inflight - fpl->count);
Same question here.
Thanks!
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists