On (06/01/17 00:41), Julian Anastasov wrote: > > So, we do not hold reference to neigh while accessing > its fields. I suspect we need to move the table lock from > neigh_remove_one here, for example:
good point, let me think over your suggestion carefully (it sounds right, I want to make sure I dont miss any other race-windows) and post patch v4 tomorrow.. > Another solution to cause faster removal would be > to cancel the gc_work and to schedule it after 1 jiffie. > It helps when many entries are deleted at once but the > work prefers to just sleep when gc_thresh1 is not reached, > so such solution is not good enough. Right the other drawback of relying on gc for cleanup is that it doesn't give higher preference to cleaning up FAILED entries first- so it can end up cleaning up other useful entries (as I was pointing out to David Ahern) --Sowmini
