LVS
lvs-devel
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: [*v2 PATCH 00/22] IPVS, Network Name Space aware

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>