From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Advice on RCU for IPVS
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:00:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1267192820.9082.11.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100226031812.GC6111@verge.net.au>
Le vendredi 26 février 2010 à 14:18 +1100, Simon Horman a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I have been looking at converting the rwlocks in IPVS over to use RCU.
> A problem that I am facing is that the lblcr scheduler uses
> a write lock on list A and then taking a write lock on list B.
> Where list B is basically part of one of the elements of list A.
>
> This problem is present in ip_vs_lblcr_schedule() and
> the key code looks like this.
>
>
> /* First look in our cache */
> read_lock(&svc->sched_lock);
> en = ip_vs_lblcr_get(svc->af, tbl, &iph.daddr);
> if (en) {
> ...
>
> /* Get the least loaded destination */
> read_lock(&en->set.lock);
> dest = ip_vs_dest_set_min(&en->set);
> read_unlock(&en->set.lock);
>
> ...
>
> write_lock(&en->set.lock);
> m = ip_vs_dest_set_max(&en->set);
> if (m)
> ip_vs_dest_set_erase(&en->set, m);
> write_unlock(&en->set.lock);
>
> ...
>
> /* Update our cache entry */
> write_lock(&en->set.lock);
> ip_vs_dest_set_insert(&en->set, dest);
> write_unlock(&en->set.lock);
> }
> read_unlock(&svc->sched_lock);
>
> dest is referenced counted and doesn't seem to need to be guarded
> by svc->sched_lock.
>
> It seems to me that this is quite difficult to convert over to RCU
> as there are write-side critical sections inside a read-side critical
> section.
>
> I investigated reference counting the return value of
> ip_vs_lblcr_get() or the return value of ip_vs_dest_set_max() and
> ip_vs_dest_set_insert(). But this seems to be difficult,
> especially at rmmod time.
>
> I also considered just making the whole thing a write-side critical section.
> Which seems to be somewhat of a sledge-hammer and result in
> a critical section that is much larger than I would like. Though
> no bigger than the existing area covered by the read-lock on
> svc->sched_lock.
>
> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
The code you copy/pasted seems really complex, I would suggest to make
it as simple as possible (using spinlocks for example instead of
rwlocks) before considering RCU conversion.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-26 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-26 3:18 Advice on RCU for IPVS Simon Horman
2010-02-26 14:00 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1267192820.9082.11.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox