From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][PKT_CLS] Avoid multiple tree locks Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20070327.164435.123974053.davem@davemloft.net> References: <46013B73.2060804@trash.net> <1174543640.4895.28.camel@localhost> <46026A31.1090603@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, netdev@vger.kernel.org, tgraf@suug.ch To: kaber@trash.net Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:33360 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751349AbXC0XpB (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:45:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46026A31.1090603@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Patrick McHardy Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:36:17 +0100 > jamal wrote: > > The mutex is certainly a cleaner approach; > > and a lot of the RCU protection would go away. I like it. > > Not as much as I initially thought, but at least we would have > consistent locking for the dump callbacks. > > > Knowing you i sense theres something clever in there that i am > > missing. I dont see how you could get rid of the tree locking > > since we need to protect against the data path still, no? > > Or are you looking at that as a separate effort? > > We can remove qdisc_tree_lock since with this patch all changes > and all tree walking happen under the RTNL. We still need to keep > dev->queue_lock for the data path. > > I'll update the patches to include all rtnetlink users and repost > in a day or two. The existing weird "first SKB only" locking is unintuitive to me as well, so I'm all for these mutex patches once you respin them FWIW.