|
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 ;) )
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
|
