From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 07:39:24 +1100 > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:40:28AM +0000, Thomas Graf wrote: >> >> This is unrelated to resize run control though, the reason is that >> I'm converting tcp_hashinfo et al and they require a hybrid approach. >> The tables may be too big to construct a parallel data structure, we >> don't want to hold off inserts or deletes while the expensive dump >> is underway. Even though we can't build a shadow structure while >> locking everybody else out, we still want to provide a way to somehow >> achieve consistent information. I think that NLM_F_INTR with fallback >> to restarting the dump is a good option and very easy to implement. In >> that case, we want to lock out resize from dumping iterations but >> still allow parallel insert/delete. > > Well I guess Dave needs to make the call. Do we want to allow > lockless walks over the hash table or not? > > Personally I don't think a linked list is that big a deal. But then > you guys were agonsing over a single pointer so who knows. For netlink a linked list is no big deal, but for something like TCP sockets it really is. -- 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
