On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 16:17 +0300, Amir Vadai wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 08:05:03AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> >
> > old = rtnl_dereference(mykey->p);
> > if (ovr)
> > spin_lock_bh(&mykey->tcf_lock);
> Thanks for the detailed example :)
>
> what are we protecting with this spin lo
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 08:05:03AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 16-08-30 07:03 AM, Amir Vadai wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:04:21PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Eric Dumazet
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 11:26 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 14:39 +0300, Amir Vadai wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:03:08PM +0300, Amir Vadai wrote:
> > Regarding the specific action in this patchset, correct me if I'm wrong,
> > but I think that the lock could be removed safely.
Sure ;)
> >
> > When the action is modified duri
On 16-08-30 07:03 AM, Amir Vadai wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:04:21PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 11:26 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
Regarding the specific action in this patchset, correct me if I'm wrong,
but I think
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:03:08PM +0300, Amir Vadai wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:04:21PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Eric Dumazet
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 11:26 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > >> 1) Currently there are only a few actions using l
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:04:21PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 11:26 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> 1) Currently there are only a few actions using lockless, and they are
> >> questionable, as we already discussed before,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 11:26 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> 1) Currently there are only a few actions using lockless, and they are
>> questionable, as we already discussed before, there could be some
>> race condition when you modify an existing a
On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 11:26 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > Please find a better way than using a spinlock in this hot path.
> >
> > Maybe looking at
> > 2ee22a90c7afac265bb6f7abea610b938195e2b8 net_sched: act_mirred: remove
> > spinlock in
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> Please find a better way than using a spinlock in this hot path.
>
> Maybe looking at
> 2ee22a90c7afac265bb6f7abea610b938195e2b8 net_sched: act_mirred: remove
> spinlock in fast path
> 56e5d1ca183d8616fab377d7d466c244b4dbb3b9 net_sched: ac
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 19:13:47 +0300, Hadar Hen Zion wrote:
> +static int tunnel_key_act(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct tc_action *a,
> + struct tcf_result *res)
> +{
> + struct tcf_tunnel_key *t = to_tunnel_key(a);
> + int action;
> +
> + spin_lock(&t->tcf_lock);
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-08-25 at 19:13 +0300, Hadar Hen Zion wrote:
>> From: Amir Vadai
>> +static int tunnel_key_act(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct tc_action *a,
>> + struct tcf_result *res)
>> +{
>> + struct tcf_tunnel_ke
On Thu, 2016-08-25 at 19:13 +0300, Hadar Hen Zion wrote:
> From: Amir Vadai
>
> This action could be used before redirecting packets to a shared tunnel
> device, or when redirecting packets arriving from a such a device.
>
> The action will release the metadata created by the tunnel device
> (de
Hi,
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 19:13:47 +0300 Hadar Hen Zion wrote:
> +static int tunnel_key_act(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct tc_action *a,
> + struct tcf_result *res)
> +{
> + struct tcf_tunnel_key *t = to_tunnel_key(a);
> + int action;
> +
> + spin_lock(&t->tcf_l
From: Amir Vadai
This action could be used before redirecting packets to a shared tunnel
device, or when redirecting packets arriving from a such a device.
The action will release the metadata created by the tunnel device
(decap), or set the metadata with the specified values for encap
operation
14 matches
Mail list logo
