|
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 04:05:50PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le vendredi 20 août 2010 à 21:44 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > I'm still getting my head around RCU, so review would be greatly
> > > appreciated.
> > >
> > > It occurs to me that this code is not performance critical, so
> > > perhaps simply replacing the rwlock with a spinlock would be better?
> > >
> > > Index: nf-next-2.6/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sched.c
>
>
> > > - write_unlock_bh(&__ip_vs_sched_lock);
> > > + list_del_rcu(&scheduler->n_list);
> > > + spin_unlock_bh(&ip_vs_sched_mutex);
> >
> > Need a rcu_barrier_bh().
> >
> > >
> > > /* decrease the module use count */
> > > ip_vs_use_count_dec();
>
>
> Quite frankly, if this is not performance critical, just use the
> spinlock (and dont use 'mutex' in its name ;) )
Will do.
> Using RCU here will force at least one RCU grace period at dismantle
> time...
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|
