| Message ID | 200912010219.29340.opurdila@ixiacom.com |
|---|---|
| State | RFC, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
From: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@ixiacom.com> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 02:19:29 +0200 > > I am trying to convert the LLC code to RCU, and it appears that for proc > support a sk_nulls_next_rcu would be required. > > Is this the wrong way to do it, or is it that nobody need it yet? I think simply nobody needed it yet. Eric, please take a look at Octavian's patch, thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tuesday 01 December 2009 02:24:54 you wrote: > From: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@ixiacom.com> > Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 02:19:29 +0200 > > > I am trying to convert the LLC code to RCU, and it appears that for proc > > support a sk_nulls_next_rcu would be required. > > > > Is this the wrong way to do it, or is it that nobody need it yet? > > I think simply nobody needed it yet. > > Eric, please take a look at Octavian's patch, thanks! > I will send a patch series later with several LLC enhancements, no need to look over the LLC bits yet - its not all done yet. I'll CC Eric on the RCU parts :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Em Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 02:19:29AM +0200, Octavian Purdila escreveu: > > I am trying to convert the LLC code to RCU, and it appears that for proc > support a sk_nulls_next_rcu would be required. I find it amusing, and give you a carte blanche on that! :-) - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Octavian Purdila a écrit : > On Tuesday 01 December 2009 02:24:54 you wrote: >> From: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@ixiacom.com> >> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 02:19:29 +0200 >> >>> I am trying to convert the LLC code to RCU, and it appears that for proc >>> support a sk_nulls_next_rcu would be required. >>> >>> Is this the wrong way to do it, or is it that nobody need it yet? >> I think simply nobody needed it yet. >> >> Eric, please take a look at Octavian's patch, thanks! >> > > I will send a patch series later with several LLC enhancements, no need to > look over the LLC bits yet - its not all done yet. I'll CC Eric on the RCU > parts :) No problem I'll review your patches Thanks -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tuesday 01 December 2009 02:59:29 you wrote: > Em Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 02:19:29AM +0200, Octavian Purdila escreveu: > > I am trying to convert the LLC code to RCU, and it appears that for proc > > support a sk_nulls_next_rcu would be required. > > I find it amusing, and give you a carte blanche on that! :-) > :-) Its just an exercise for me to understand RCU, but its harder than I originally thought and I did give up trying to finish it in the first batch of LLC patches I've just sent. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h index 3f1a480..989d7e9 100644 --- a/include/net/sock.h +++ b/include/net/sock.h @@ -351,6 +351,13 @@ static inline struct sock *sk_nulls_next(const struct sock *sk) NULL; } +static inline struct sock *sk_nulls_next_rcu(const struct sock *sk) +{ + struct hlist_nulls_node *n = rcu_dereference(sk->sk_nulls_node.next); + return !is_a_nulls(n) ? hlist_nulls_entry(n, struct sock, sk_nulls_node) : + NULL; +} + static inline int sk_unhashed(const struct sock *sk) { return hlist_unhashed(&sk->sk_node); diff --git a/net/llc/llc_proc.c b/net/llc/llc_proc.c index be47ac4..7567fb9 100644 --- a/net/llc/llc_proc.c +++ b/net/llc/llc_proc.c @@ -34,19 +34,19 @@ static struct sock *llc_get_sk_idx(loff_t pos) { struct list_head *sap_entry; struct llc_sap *sap; - struct hlist_node *node; + struct hlist_nulls_node *node; struct sock *sk = NULL; list_for_each(sap_entry, &llc_sap_list) { sap = list_entry(sap_entry, struct llc_sap, node); - read_lock_bh(&sap->sk_list.lock); - sk_for_each(sk, node, &sap->sk_list.list) { + rcu_read_lock_bh(); + sk_nulls_for_each_rcu(sk, node, &sap->sk_list.list) { if (!pos) goto found; --pos; } - read_unlock_bh(&sap->sk_list.lock); + rcu_read_unlock_bh(); } sk = NULL; found: @@ -73,25 +73,25 @@ static void *llc_seq_next(struct seq_file *seq, void *v, loff_t *pos) goto out; } sk = v; - next = sk_next(sk); + next = sk_nulls_next(sk); if (next) { sk = next; goto out; } llc = llc_sk(sk); sap = llc->sap; - read_unlock_bh(&sap->sk_list.lock); + rcu_read_unlock_bh(); sk = NULL; for (;;) { + struct hlist_nulls_node *node; + if (sap->node.next == &llc_sap_list) break; sap = list_entry(sap->node.next, struct llc_sap, node); - read_lock_bh(&sap->sk_list.lock); - if (!hlist_empty(&sap->sk_list.list)) { - sk = sk_head(&sap->sk_list.list); + rcu_read_lock_bh(); + sk_nulls_for_each_rcu(sk, node, &sap->sk_list.list) break; - } - read_unlock_bh(&sap->sk_list.lock); + rcu_read_unlock_bh(); } out: return sk; @@ -99,13 +99,8 @@ out: static void llc_seq_stop(struct seq_file *seq, void *v) { - if (v && v != SEQ_START_TOKEN) { - struct sock *sk = v; - struct llc_sock *llc = llc_sk(sk); - struct llc_sap *sap = llc->sap; - - read_unlock_bh(&sap->sk_list.lock); - } + if (v && v != SEQ_START_TOKEN) + rcu_read_unlock_bh(); read_unlock_bh(&llc_sap_list_lock); }