From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Veaceslav Falico Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] bonding: patchset for rcu use in bonding Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:13:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20131021091336.GB692@redhat.com> References: <5264ECBC.2090208@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: Jay Vosburgh , Andy Gospodarek , "David S. Miller" , Nikolay Aleksandrov , Netdev To: Ding Tianhong Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23066 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752978Ab3JUJSC (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 05:18:02 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5264ECBC.2090208@huawei.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 04:58:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >Hi: > >The Patch Set will remove the invalid lock for bond work queue and replace it >with rtnl lock, as read lock for bond could not protect slave list any more. rtnl lock is a lot more expensive than bond lock, and not only for bond, but for all the networking stack. Why is the bond->lock invalid? It correctly protects slaves from being modified concurrently. I don't see the point in this patchset. > >Ding Tianhong (5): > bonding: remove bond read lock for bond_mii_monitor() > bonding: remove bond read lock for bond_alb_monitor() > bonding: remove bond read lock for bond_loadbalance_arp_mon() > bonding: remove bond read lock for bond_activebackup_arp_mon() > bonding: remove bond read lock for bond_3ad_state_machine_handler() > > drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c | 9 ++-- > drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c | 20 ++------ > drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 100 +++++++++++++--------------------------- > 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-) > >-- >1.8.2.1 > > >