> -Original Message-
> From: Cong Wang [mailto:xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 11:40 PM
> To: Chris Mi
> Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim ; Linux Kernel Network Developers
> ; Lucas Bates ; Jiri Pirko
> ; David Miller
> Subject: Re: [patch net v
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Chris Mi wrote:
>
> It seems it is not easy to discard call_rcu(). I'm afraid even if we have a
> final solution
> without call_rcu(), it is not mature at the beginning as well. I mean we also
> need time
Why do you believe it is not easy? RTNL lock is already
> -Original Message-
> From: Cong Wang [mailto:xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 11:00 AM
> To: Jamal Hadi Salim
> Cc: Chris Mi ; Linux Kernel Network Developers
> ; Lucas Bates ; Jiri Pirko
> ; David Miller
> Subject: Re: [patch net v
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 17-10-18 12:43 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Chris Mi wrote:
-Original Message-
>
>
>>
>> You listed 3 problems, and you think they are 3 different ones, here
>> I argue problem 3 (using
On 17-10-18 12:43 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Chris Mi wrote:
-Original Message-
You listed 3 problems, and you think they are 3 different ones, here
I argue problem 3 (using RCU callbacks) is the cause of problem 1
(refcnt not atomic). This is why I mentio
Lucas Bates ; Jiri Pirko
>> ; David Miller
>> Subject: Re: [patch net v2 1/4] net/sched: Change tc_action refcnt and
>> bindcnt to atomic
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Chris Mi wrote:
>> > I don't think this bug were introduced by above two commit
> -Original Message-
> From: Cong Wang [mailto:xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 11:53 PM
> To: Chris Mi
> Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers ; Jamal Hadi
> Salim ; Lucas Bates ; Jiri Pirko
> ; David Miller
> Subject: Re: [patch net v
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Chris Mi wrote:
> I don't think this bug were introduced by above two commits only.
> Actually, this bug were introduced by several commits, at least the following:
> 1. refcnt and bindcnt are not atomic
Nope, it is perfectly okay with non-atomic as long as no par
> -Original Message-
> From: Cong Wang [mailto:xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 1:06 AM
> To: Chris Mi
> Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers ; Jamal Hadi
> Salim ; Lucas Bates ; Jiri Pirko
> ; David Miller
> Subject: Re: [patch net v
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Chris Mi wrote:
> If many filters share the same action. That action's refcnt and bindcnt
> could be manipulated by many RCU callbacks at the same time. This patch
> makes these operations atomic.
Actually I have been thinking about removing these RCU callbacks,
t
10 matches
Mail list logo
