From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4F5634CF5 for ; Mon, 5 May 2025 18:35:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746470115; cv=none; b=LwTVWSfenRsm9KDlzxk6k62OEv3EuTv/93Dc5L/T98aQFKurhzqQ9e20UMl0JG8rtxj8kGEz7pWCxAgnEha/g4STyG7FzT3y08AtcRvPn15yc9/PUvNGHRELFlg9NkcoIgwVB7wtbNAVxuVR50+q88aDy9TGKSYX2grOi9FrGzA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746470115; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+mO4oEHeyTD7SgRxpJ2j9SLBJ3XsPkV7afLvCpyo2Cs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=NBIsK+YiK5XXn56zLo8AysykxH8X7/vGZS6m9CUd3adqVoHMGVBm59XHGAvEDMH6ToLDBdLrKqt2qY1sKthqTHHpkFFVVANXQy2wIPpUTtU8XUR1RwL+/NTDmPhIhLasryt5sl13PScDazP3N2K/KrXkwEQd+um/Omya0s/W/E4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=rR1rJurd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="rR1rJurd" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0EC8C4CEE4; Mon, 5 May 2025 18:35:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1746470115; bh=+mO4oEHeyTD7SgRxpJ2j9SLBJ3XsPkV7afLvCpyo2Cs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=rR1rJurdUSPykpA7lm1lUzhT0RM3SySOyGCI+HJpkh5yJG0x54ezVfrJ/Mi6QthKe YQtUpLsPcWWNoCWVHT1dkDaZblqGL4omGCsQ6O+FNitIxlhjIP1Clr6MsXN2jMpSEy Mt0UQfXk/YdTa42YwX9eD4Qk786xVawXzYG0Q7GecdSSk67NrN/fyfyw9/yGItz8EL WwV9vEBuk1dVbiRWc8lTb27C9g2/PomxqwA0MRap28OrzMzJ2V9MUdLNvi4Ti01uXb XkQH6AIlV/qxi51qlKsOyjmUOrIQko0Hok24k6lVdnsGQdYunDqLrc6tneIzXasyEQ CznrUNVSgoEQg== Date: Mon, 5 May 2025 11:35:14 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Cosmin Ratiu , stfomichev@gmail.com Cc: "jhs@mojatatu.com" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "saeed@kernel.org" , Dragos Tatulea , "sdf@fomichev.me" , "xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com" , "jiri@resnulli.us" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "edumazet@google.com" , "pabeni@redhat.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v10 04/14] net: hold netdev instance lock during qdisc ndo_setup_tc Message-ID: <20250505113514.6f369217@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20250305163732.2766420-1-sdf@fomichev.me> <20250305163732.2766420-5-sdf@fomichev.me> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 5 May 2025 15:12:39 +0000 Cosmin Ratiu wrote: > On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 08:07 -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > On 05/05, Cosmin Ratiu wrote: =20 > > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > > > index d1a8cad0c99c..134ceddf7fa5 100644 > > > --- a/net/core/dev.c > > > +++ b/net/core/dev.c > > > @@ -12020,9 +12020,9 @@ void > > > unregister_netdevice_many_notify(struct > > > list_head *head, > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 struct sk_buff *skb =3D NULL; > > > =C2=A0 > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 /* Shutdown queueing discipline. */ > > > +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 netdev_lock_ops(dev); > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 dev_shutdown(dev); > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 dev_tcx_uninstall(dev); =20 > >=20 > > There is a synchronize_net hidden inside of dev_tcx_uninstall, so > > let's ops-lock only dev_shutdown here? Other than that, don't see > > anything wrong. Can you send this separately and target net tree? =20 Avoiding synchronize_net() under the instance lock as an optimization?=20 We're under rtnl_lock here, probably a premature optimization? But no strong preference.. BTW isn't the naming scheme now that dev_* takes the lock? So we should probably add netif_ versions or rename these existing calls?