From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
pabeni@redhat.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, petrm@nvidia.com,
lirongqing@baidu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] vrf: Remove unnecessary synchronize_rcu() invocations
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 16:42:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260325144228.GA686135@shredder> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1ea4c187-9c1f-4e15-b472-07a82abd3260@kernel.org>
On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 08:17:30AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 3/24/26 2:39 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 8:56 AM Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> vrf_rtable_release() and vrf_rt6_release() are called as part of the VRF
> >> device's ndo_uninit() callback. As such, an RCU grace period passes
> >> between the removal of the VRF slaves and the closing of the VRF device
> >> until these functions are invoked.
> >>
> >> Therefore, it should not be possible for any concurrent RCU readers to
> >> try and acquire a reference on the dst entry while we are potentially
> >> releasing the last reference via dst_release().
> >>
> >> Given the above, the synchronize_rcu() invocations in these functions
> >> seem unnecessary and only add unnecessary delay when deleting VRF
> >> devices. Remove them.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Petr Machata <petrm@nvidia.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/net/vrf.c | 2 --
> >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/vrf.c b/drivers/net/vrf.c
> >> index bfc9ea91ac20..75edb8eba87f 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/vrf.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/vrf.c
> >> @@ -753,7 +753,6 @@ static void vrf_rt6_release(struct net_device *dev, struct net_vrf *vrf)
> >> struct rt6_info *rt6 = rtnl_dereference(vrf->rt6);
> >>
> >> RCU_INIT_POINTER(vrf->rt6, NULL);
> >
> > We could argue that the vrf->rt6 clearing is not needed,
> > or should be done before the RCU grace period mentioned in the
> > changelog started ?
> >
>
> AIUI Ido's point is that the synchronize_net() in
> unregister_netdevice_many_notify() occurs before the ndo_uninit call
> making the synchronize_rcu here unnecessary. There is also a second
> synchronize_net after it.
>
> I get your point about skipping the clearing the poiniters.
We can probably remove more code than just the synchronize_rcu() calls.
Looking into that right now.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-25 14:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-24 15:55 [PATCH net-next 0/3] vrf: A few cleanups Ido Schimmel
2026-03-24 15:55 ` [PATCH net-next 1/3] vrf: Remove unnecessary NULL check Ido Schimmel
2026-03-24 19:06 ` David Ahern
2026-03-24 15:55 ` [PATCH net-next 2/3] vrf: Use dst_dev_put() instead of using loopback device Ido Schimmel
2026-03-24 19:07 ` David Ahern
2026-03-24 15:55 ` [PATCH net-next 3/3] vrf: Remove unnecessary synchronize_rcu() invocations Ido Schimmel
2026-03-24 19:09 ` David Ahern
2026-03-24 20:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2026-03-25 14:17 ` David Ahern
2026-03-25 14:42 ` Ido Schimmel [this message]
2026-03-25 14:57 ` Eric Dumazet
2026-03-25 20:11 ` Ido Schimmel
2026-03-25 22:35 ` David Ahern
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=20260325144228.GA686135@shredder \
--to=idosch@nvidia.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=lirongqing@baidu.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=petrm@nvidia.com \
/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