From: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>
To: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
Netfilter Developer Mailing List
<netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: Remove duplicated rcu_read_lock.
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 00:12:04 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMArcTXviyp7acsv+eRYW7yGseWj+THLQ4GPg04NJieTd3SegA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1705241508270.9575@ja.home.ssi.bg>
2017-05-24 21:25 GMT+09:00 Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>:
>
> Hello,
>
> The IPVS part from patch looks good but can be extended
> to also remove rcu_read_lock and rcu_read_unlock from:
>
> 1. all app_conn_bind methods because ip_vs_bind_app() is called
> always under RCU lock from ip_vs_try_bind_dest() and ip_vs_conn_new().
> I.e. from sctp_app_conn_bind, tcp_app_conn_bind and udp_app_conn_bind.
>
> 2. ip_vs_xmit.c, all locks
>
> IMHO, using comments instead of locks is not needed, it is
> enough that the commit message explains why RCU locks are removed
>
I agree that. so I'll remove comments in v2 patch.
> More details:
>
> In IPVS we have the following contexts:
> - packet RX/TX: does not need locks because packets come from hooks
> - sync msg RX: backup server uses RCU locks while registering new conns
> - ip_vs_ctl.c: configuration get/set, RCU locks needed
> - xt_ipvs.c: It is a NF match
>
This comments are very helpful for me.
> As result, rcu_read_lock and rcu_read_unlock can be removed from:
> - ip_vs_core.c: all
> - ip_vs_ctl.c:
> - from ip_vs_has_real_service
> - all other places need the RCU locking
> - ip_vs_ftp.c: all
> - ip_vs_proto_sctp.c: all
> - ip_vs_proto_tcp.c: all
> - ip_vs_proto_udp.c: all
> - ip_vs_xmit.c: all (contains only packet processing)
>
> Locks should remain in:
> - ip_vs_conn.c
> - ip_vs_pe.c
> - ip_vs_sync.c
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
Thank you so much for helpful review!
I'll make a v2 patch included your suggestion.
Thanks a lot!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-29 15:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-24 12:25 [PATCH] netfilter: Remove duplicated rcu_read_lock Julian Anastasov
2017-05-29 11:23 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2017-05-29 15:12 ` Taehee Yoo [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-05-13 18:51 Taehee Yoo
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=CAMArcTXviyp7acsv+eRYW7yGseWj+THLQ4GPg04NJieTd3SegA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ap420073@gmail.com \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=ja@ssi.bg \
--cc=lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).