From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] rhashtable: Per bucket locks & deferred expansion/shrinking Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:38:26 +0000 Message-ID: <20150116163826.GD15052@casper.infradead.org> References: <75db38bc9313a55cf02a8c36a3376c32b691e5d9.1418647641.git.tgraf@suug.ch> <20150116153415.GF30132@acer.localdomain> <20150116155835.GA15052@casper.infradead.org> <20150116160354.GI30132@acer.localdomain> <20150116161530.GC15052@casper.infradead.org> <20150116163202.GJ30132@acer.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, edumazet@google.com, john.r.fastabend@intel.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150116163202.GJ30132@acer.localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On 01/16/15 at 04:32pm, Patrick McHardy wrote: > If we have to block, the dumper if of course preferred. Taking the > mutex should do fine I guess? That will work, it will also ensure that the walker doesn't see the pre unzip state which would cause entries to be duplicated in the walker. > I suppose walking both tables without any races would be rather > complicated. Very interested if you can come up with something ;-)