On 06/07/10 18:01, David Miller wrote: > From: Cong Wang<amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:57:49 +0800 > >> Hmm, I still feel like this way is ugly, although it may work. >> I guess David doesn't like it either. > > Of course I don't like it. :-) > > I suspect the locking scheme will need to be changed. > > Besides, if we're going to hack this up and do write lock attempts in > the read locking paths, there is no point in using a rwlock any more. > And I'm personally in disfavor of all rwlock usage anyways (it dirties > the cacheline for readers just as equally for writers, and if the > critically protected code path is short enough, that shared cache > line atomic operation will be the predominant cost). > > So I'd say, 1) make this a spinlock and 2) try to use RCU for the > read path. > > That would fix everything. Yeah, agreed. Even not talking about netconsole, bonding code does have locking problems, netconsole just makes this problem clear. I will try your suggestions above. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
