On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:38:06PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:48:46PM +0000, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 02:03:51PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > As a side effect, we save memory as we don't need rcu_head per rule > > > anymore. > > > > We can also save some memory for now unnecessary families in the private > > structs since we have the context available during destruction again. > > Right, that was only needed with when we were using call_rcu. I'll > revisit that. I already have a patch which does this for expressions which can now use pkt->hook_ops->pf queued. Since its quite similar, I'll just add it to my patch once your patch is in the tree. > > I have to admit this all seems slightly confusing to me, we now have three > > synhronize_rcu()s in this function, are all those really needed? > > There are only two to separate the different stages. To my > understanding, the first one ensures that all packets has left the > previous generation before we start purging out old rules. Then, the > second one makes sure that no packets are still checking the old rule > genmask that have just been deleted, so we can safely release it. > > Before this patch, we only needed one since we were using call_rcu > after deleting the rules from the list. I'll have another look now, thanks. -- 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
