On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:22:54AM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Since commit d188ba86dd07a72eb ("xfrm: add rcu protection to
> > sk->sk_policy[]")
> > sk_policy can rely on rcu protection.
> >
> > This change allows to also use rcu in xfrm_policy_lookup_bytype and to
> > avoid grabbing the read-sie policy lock during lookups.
> >
> > read-side policy rwlock is converted to pure rcu, then the policy_lock is
> > changed to a plain spinlock as only write-sides remain.
> >
> > First few patches do some preparation work, the later ones remove
> > the read-side locks, last patch converts rwlock to spinlock.
> >
> > I tested this with rcu debug enabled and simple esp tunnel
> > forwarding udp packets.
> >
> > If you have better tests for this please let me know and I can re-run with
> > that.
> >
> > Florian Westphal (8):
> > xfrm: policy: use rcu versions for iteration and list add/del
> > xfrm: policy: prepare policy_bydst hash for rcu lookups
> > xfrm: policy: add sequence count to synchronize reads with hash
> > resizes
> > xfrm: policy: use atomic_inc_not_zero in rcu section
> > xfrm: policy: make xfrm_policy_lookup_bytype lockless
> > xfrm: policy: only use rcu in xfrm_sk_policy_lookup
> > xfrm: policy: don't acquire policy lock in xfrm_spd_getinfo
> > xfrm: policy: convert policy_lock to spinlock
> >
> > include/net/netns/xfrm.h | 4 -
> > net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c | 145
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> > 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
>
> Looks good, I've applied to already to the ipsec-next testing branch.
> However, I'll be off for a week starting this afternoon, so I don't
> see if the patchset passed all tests before I leave. For that I defer
> the applying to master until I'm back.
Now applied to the ipsec-next tree, thanks a lot Florian!
