From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Qin Chuanyu <qinchuanyu@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tun: use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx_ni
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:50:03 +0800
Message-ID: <52FAD34B.3030902@huawei.com>
References: <52FA32C5.9040601@huawei.com> <1392132244.6615.83.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
	format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]:50524 "EHLO
	szxga03-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752179AbaBLBuW (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:50:22 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1392132244.6615.83.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 2014/2/11 23:24, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
>> index 44c4db8..90b4e58 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
>> @@ -1184,7 +1184,9 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct
>> *tun, struct tun_file *tfile,
>>    	skb_probe_transport_header(skb, 0);
>>
>>    	rxhash =3D skb_get_hash(skb);
>> -	netif_rx_ni(skb);
>> +	rcu_read_lock_bh();
>> +	netif_receive_skb(skb);
>> +	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
>>
>>    	tun->dev->stats.rx_packets++;
>>    	tun->dev->stats.rx_bytes +=3D len;
>
> I already said this patch is not good :
>
> rcu_read_lock_bh() makes no sense here.
>
> What is really needed is local_bh_disable();
>
> Herbert patch ( http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/52963/ ) had a much
> cleaner form.
>
> Just use it, CC him, credit him, please ?
>
To: Herbert Xu
I saw that you had delivered a patch to resolve the problem of cgroup.
patch num is f845172531fb7410c7fb7780b1a6e51ee6df7d52

so would you deliver your patch for tun again? I had test it and found=20
it work well.

To: Eric
I approve your idea that rcu_read_lock make no sense. but I couldn't
understand why dev_queue_xmit use it.
What is the difference between vhost thread using tap to xmit skb and=20
another thread use dev_queue_xmit to xmit skb=EF=BC=9F
It is really my honor if you could explain it for me.
Thanks.