Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH RFC] TCPCT part 1d: generate Responder Cookie
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Tue Nov 03 2009 - 18:03:29 EST
William Allen Simpson a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> This patch looks fine, but I dont see how this new function is used.
>> Some points :
>> 1) We are working hard to remove rwlocks from network stack, so please
>> add a new one. You probably can use a seqlock or RCU, or a server
>> handling 10.000 connections request per second on many NIC will hit
>> this rwlock.
> This is my attempt at using RCU, as seqlock didn't seem to apply (and is
> missing any Documentation.)
That seems very good, thanks, we can sort out details later, when full picture
> After the discussion about context, one question that I have is the need
> for the _bh suffix?
> + rcu_read_lock_bh();
> + memcpy(&xvp->cookie_bakery,
> + &rcu_dereference(tcp_secret_generating)->secrets,
> + sizeof(tcp_secret_generating->secrets));
> + rcu_read_unlock_bh();
Well, you dont need to disable BH in this code running in softirq context only.
Just use rcu_read_lock() (like you use spin_lock() in same function/context)
> Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt #7 says:
> One exception to this rule: rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
> may be substituted for rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh()
> in cases where local bottom halves are already known to be
> disabled, for example, in irq or softirq context. Commenting
> such cases is a must, of course! And the jury is still out on
> whether the increased speed is worth it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/