On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 04:05:50PM +0200, Eric Dumazet 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 ;) ) Will do. > Using RCU here will force at least one RCU grace period at dismantle > time... > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
