|
Hello,
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> Actually I forgot to tell there is a need for a
> ip_vs_service_cleanup() due to above.
> Do you see any drawbacks with it ?
May be ip_vs_service_cleanup() should call only
ip_vs_flush(), under __ip_vs_mutex.
> /*
> * Delete service by {netns} in the service table.
> */
> static void ip_vs_service_cleanup(struct net *net)
> {
> unsigned hash;
> struct ip_vs_service *svc, *tmp;
>
> EnterFunction(2);
> /* Check for "full" addressed entries */
> for (hash = 0; hash<IP_VS_SVC_TAB_SIZE; hash++) {
> write_lock_bh(&__ip_vs_svc_lock);
> list_for_each_entry_safe(svc, tmp, &ip_vs_svc_table[hash],
> s_list) {
> if (net_eq(svc->net, net)) {
> ip_vs_svc_unhash(svc);
> __ip_vs_del_service(svc);
> }
> }
> list_for_each_entry_safe(svc, tmp, &ip_vs_svc_fwm_table[hash],
> f_list) {
> if (net_eq(svc->net, net)) {
> ip_vs_svc_unhash(svc);
> __ip_vs_del_service(svc);
> }
> }
> write_unlock_bh(&__ip_vs_svc_lock);
> }
> LeaveFunction(2);
> }
>
> Called just after the __ip_vs_control_cleanup_sysctl()
Hm, no. ip_vs_service_cleanup() should be called
by ip_vs_cleanup() before or after nf_unregister_hooks().
The rule is that ip_vs_flush() should be called before
ip_vs_conn_flush() because after ip_vs_flush() no more
connections can be created and even if hooks are still
registered the packets can not create conns in the netns. Then
ip_vs_conn_flush() will remove all existing connections and
ip_vs_control_cleanup() can remove all real servers with
ip_vs_trash_cleanup(). I mean, per-netns calls.
Also, may be all code that was called in old
kernels by ip_vs_cleanup() should be now called by
__ip_vs_cleanup(net), i.e. we can preserve the needed order
of all functions but now also per-netns. For example, for
ip_vs_ctl.c ip_vs_control_init() can remain as global but it
should not register ipvs_control_ops. Then we
can rename __ip_vs_control_init to ip_vs_control_init_net()
and to call it from __ip_vs_init(). I.e. all such files
will have global function and also _init_net and
_cleanup_net. Now there are many register_pernet_subsys()
calls and I'm not sure we preserve the needed order for
cleanup. Are the ->exit methods called in reverse order?
I don't see it in ops_exit_list() and we can not rely
on such registration order. I think, ip_vs_init() should
call global functions as now but __ip_vs_init() and
__ip_vs_cleanup() should call the _net methods in right
order.
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
|
