Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.




      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