[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240413021012.20209-1-kuniyu@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 19:10:12 -0700
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
To: <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuni1840@...il.com>,
<kuniyu@...zon.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net-next] af_unix: Try not to hold unix_gc_lock during accept().
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 19:05:22 -0700
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:19:29 -0700 Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > void unix_update_edges(struct unix_sock *receiver)
> > {
> > - spin_lock(&unix_gc_lock);
> > - unix_update_graph(unix_sk(receiver->listener)->vertex);
> > + /* nr_unix_fds is only updated under unix_state_lock().
> > + * If it's 0 here, the embryo socket is not part of the
> > + * inflight graph, and GC will not see it.
> > + */
> > + bool need_lock = !!receiver->scm_stat.nr_unix_fds;
> > +
> > + if (need_lock) {
> > + spin_lock(&unix_gc_lock);
> > + unix_update_graph(unix_sk(receiver->listener)->vertex);
> > + }
> > +
> > receiver->listener = NULL;
> > - spin_unlock(&unix_gc_lock);
> > +
> > + if (need_lock)
> > + spin_unlock(&unix_gc_lock);
> > }
>
> Are you planning to add more code here? I feel like the sharing of
> a single line is outweighted by the conditionals.. I mean:
>
> /* ...
> */
> if (!receiver->scm_stat.nr_unix_fd) {
> receiver->listener = NULL;
> } else {
> spin_lock(&unix_gc_lock);
> unix_update_graph(unix_sk(receiver->listener)->vertex);
> receiver->listener = NULL;
> spin_unlock(&unix_gc_lock);
> }
>
> no?
Ah exactly, I'll repsin v2 with that style.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists