On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure if it is better. The difference is caught up in > net_enable_timestamp(), > which is called setsockopt() path and sk_clone() path, so we could be > in netstamp_needed state for a long time too until user-space exercises > these paths. > > I am feeling we probably need to get rid of netstamp_needed_deferred, > and simply defer the whole static_key_slow_dec(), like the attached patch > (compile only). > > What do you think? I think we need to keep the atomic. If two cpus call net_disable_timestamp() roughly at the same time, the work will be scheduled once.
