lvs-devel
|
To: | Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [*v2 PATCH 00/22] IPVS, Network Name Space aware |
Cc: | "horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxx" <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxx>, "wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "hans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <hans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
From: | Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> |
Date: | Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:11:19 +0200 (EET) |
Hello, On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Hans Schillstrom wrote: v2 PATCH 13/22 - ip_vs_est - estimation_timer: what protection is needed for for_each_net? It is rtnl for user context and RCU for softirq? May be est_timer must be per NS? Now may be rcu_read_lock is needed before for_each_net_rcu ? for_each_net can be called only under rtnl_lock?[snip] In case of a common timer for all ns: rcu_read_lock(); for_each_net_rcu(net) { ... } rcu_read_unlock(); I guess it's better with a timer per netns ? Yes, I too have little preference for the per-ns timer. (then for_each_net() is not needed, and the locking can remain the same as before the netns change.) Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> -- 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 |
Previous by Date: | Re: [*v2 PATCH 00/22] IPVS, Network Name Space aware, Graeme Fowler |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [*v2 PATCH 06/22] IPVS: netns preparation for proto_tcp, Julian Anastasov |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [*v2 PATCH 00/22] IPVS, Network Name Space aware, Hans Schillstrom |
Next by Thread: | Re: [*v2 PATCH 00/22] IPVS, Network Name Space aware, Hans Schillstrom |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |