On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:59:19PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:33:21PM +0900, Simon Horman 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
> > ===================================================================
> > --- nf-next-2.6.orig/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sched.c 2010-08-20 22:21:01.000000000 +0900
> > +++ nf-next-2.6/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sched.c 2010-08-20 22:21:51.000000000 +0900
> > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
> > static LIST_HEAD(ip_vs_schedulers);
> >
> > /* lock for service table */
> > -static DEFINE_RWLOCK(__ip_vs_sched_lock);
> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ip_vs_sched_mutex);
> >
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -91,9 +91,9 @@ static struct ip_vs_scheduler *ip_vs_sch
> >
> > IP_VS_DBG(2, "%s(): sched_name \"%s\"\n", __func__, sched_name);
> >
> > - read_lock_bh(&__ip_vs_sched_lock);
> > + rcu_read_lock_bh();
> >
> > - list_for_each_entry(sched, &ip_vs_schedulers, n_list) {
> > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(sched, &ip_vs_schedulers, n_list) {
> > /*
> > * Test and get the modules atomically
> > */
> > @@ -105,14 +105,14 @@ static struct ip_vs_scheduler *ip_vs_sch
> > }
> > if (strcmp(sched_name, sched->name)==0) {
> > /* HIT */
> > - read_unlock_bh(&__ip_vs_sched_lock);
> > + rcu_read_unlock_bh();
> > return sched;
> > }
> > if (sched->module)
> > module_put(sched->module);
> > }
> >
> > - read_unlock_bh(&__ip_vs_sched_lock);
> > + rcu_read_unlock_bh();
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -167,10 +167,10 @@ int register_ip_vs_scheduler(struct ip_v
> > /* increase the module use count */
> > ip_vs_use_count_inc();
> >
> > - write_lock_bh(&__ip_vs_sched_lock);
> > + spin_lock_bh(&ip_vs_sched_mutex);
> >
> > if (!list_empty(&scheduler->n_list)) {
> > - write_unlock_bh(&__ip_vs_sched_lock);
> > + spin_unlock_bh(&ip_vs_sched_mutex);
> > ip_vs_use_count_dec();
> > pr_err("%s(): [%s] scheduler already linked\n",
> > __func__, scheduler->name);
> > @@ -181,9 +181,9 @@ int register_ip_vs_scheduler(struct ip_v
> > * Make sure that the scheduler with this name doesn't exist
> > * in the scheduler list.
> > */
> > - list_for_each_entry(sched, &ip_vs_schedulers, n_list) {
> > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(sched, &ip_vs_schedulers, n_list) {
> > if (strcmp(scheduler->name, sched->name) == 0) {
> > - write_unlock_bh(&__ip_vs_sched_lock);
> > + spin_unlock_bh(&ip_vs_sched_mutex);
> > ip_vs_use_count_dec();
> > pr_err("%s(): [%s] scheduler already existed "
> > "in the system\n", __func__, scheduler->name);
> > @@ -193,8 +193,8 @@ int register_ip_vs_scheduler(struct ip_v
> > /*
> > * Add it into the d-linked scheduler list
> > */
> > - list_add(&scheduler->n_list, &ip_vs_schedulers);
> > - write_unlock_bh(&__ip_vs_sched_lock);
> > + list_add_rcu(&scheduler->n_list, &ip_vs_schedulers);
> > + spin_unlock_bh(&ip_vs_sched_mutex);
> >
> > pr_info("[%s] scheduler registered.\n", scheduler->name);
> >
> > @@ -212,9 +212,9 @@ int unregister_ip_vs_scheduler(struct ip
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > - write_lock_bh(&__ip_vs_sched_lock);
> > + spin_lock_bh(&ip_vs_sched_mutex);
> > if (list_empty(&scheduler->n_list)) {
> > - write_unlock_bh(&__ip_vs_sched_lock);
> > + spin_unlock_bh(&ip_vs_sched_mutex);
> > pr_err("%s(): [%s] scheduler is not in the list. failed\n",
> > __func__, scheduler->name);
> > return -EINVAL;
> > @@ -223,8 +223,8 @@ int unregister_ip_vs_scheduler(struct ip
> > /*
> > * Remove it from the d-linked scheduler list
> > */
> > - list_del(&scheduler->n_list);
> > - write_unlock_bh(&__ip_vs_sched_lock);
> > + list_del_rcu(&scheduler->n_list);
> > + spin_unlock_bh(&ip_vs_sched_mutex);
>
> On further reading, I believe that I need a synchronize_rcu(); here,
Good catch!
However, you actually need synchronize_rcu_bh() to match your
rcu_read_lock_bh() calls. Also, given Julian's comment, you probably
need something to show that this conversion is a real improvement.
Thanx, Paul
> > /* decrease the module use count */
> > ip_vs_use_count_dec();
> > --
> > 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
> --
> 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
--
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
