From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Schillstrom Subject: Re: unregister_netdevice: waiting for lo to become free. Usage count = 8 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:48:04 +0200 Message-ID: <201104182348.05228.hans@schillstrom.com> References: <201104150901.47214.hans@schillstrom.com> <201104181243.30613.hans@schillstrom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Simon Horman , netdev@vger.kernel.org, lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" To: Julian Anastasov Return-path: Received: from smtp-gw11.han.skanova.net ([81.236.55.20]:34788 "EHLO smtp-gw11.han.skanova.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751877Ab1DRVsY (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:48:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday, April 18, 2011 23:12:27 Julian Anastasov wrote: > > Hello, > > On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Hans Schillstrom wrote: > > > Actually I forgot to tell there is a need for a > > ip_vs_service_cleanup() due to above. > > Do you see any drawbacks with it ? > > May be ip_vs_service_cleanup() should call only > ip_vs_flush(), under __ip_vs_mutex. Hmm, I'm not sure if the IP_VS_WAIT_WHILE() in ip_vs_flush is a good idea in this case... That was why I wrote ip_vs_service_cleanup() > > > /* > > * Delete service by {netns} in the service table. > > */ > > static void ip_vs_service_cleanup(struct net *net) > > { > > unsigned hash; > > struct ip_vs_service *svc, *tmp; > > > > EnterFunction(2); > > /* Check for "full" addressed entries */ > > for (hash = 0; hash > write_lock_bh(&__ip_vs_svc_lock); > > list_for_each_entry_safe(svc, tmp, &ip_vs_svc_table[hash], > > s_list) { > > if (net_eq(svc->net, net)) { > > ip_vs_svc_unhash(svc); > > __ip_vs_del_service(svc); > > } > > } > > list_for_each_entry_safe(svc, tmp, &ip_vs_svc_fwm_table[hash], > > f_list) { > > if (net_eq(svc->net, net)) { > > ip_vs_svc_unhash(svc); > > __ip_vs_del_service(svc); > > } > > } > > write_unlock_bh(&__ip_vs_svc_lock); > > } > > LeaveFunction(2); > > } > > > > Called just after the __ip_vs_control_cleanup_sysctl() > > Hm, no. ip_vs_service_cleanup() should be called > by ip_vs_cleanup() before or after nf_unregister_hooks(). > The rule is that ip_vs_flush() should be called before > ip_vs_conn_flush() because after ip_vs_flush() no more > connections can be created and even if hooks are still > registered the packets can not create conns in the netns. Then > ip_vs_conn_flush() will remove all existing connections and > ip_vs_control_cleanup() can remove all real servers with > ip_vs_trash_cleanup(). I mean, per-netns calls. > OK I will try to do that, both with and without throttle in ip_vs_in() > Also, may be all code that was called in old > kernels by ip_vs_cleanup() should be now called by > __ip_vs_cleanup(net), i.e. we can preserve the needed order > of all functions but now also per-netns. For example, for > ip_vs_ctl.c ip_vs_control_init() can remain as global but it > should not register ipvs_control_ops. Then we > can rename __ip_vs_control_init to ip_vs_control_init_net() > and to call it from __ip_vs_init(). I.e. all such files > will have global function and also _init_net and > _cleanup_net. Now there are many register_pernet_subsys() > calls and I'm not sure we preserve the needed order for > cleanup. Are the ->exit methods called in reverse order? Yes > I don't see it in ops_exit_list() and we can not rely > on such registration order. I think, ip_vs_init() should > call global functions as now but __ip_vs_init() and > __ip_vs_cleanup() should call the _net methods in right > order. Exactly, I have already done that in my next patch, and some other small changes :-) For the ip_vs.ko there is only one register/unregister now, the schedulers still have their own. Hopefully the patch is ready to morrow Regards Hans