On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 ;) ) > if it is not performance critical, you should use the read_lock/write_lock, it should make the readers happier than spinlock. the name "mutex" is a little bit confuse. synchronize_rcu() is not necessary when you only need to delete from a list as it is atomic. > Using RCU here will force at least one RCU grace period at dismantle > time... > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > yao -- 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
