Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:23:33 +0200 | | From | Patrick McHardy <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier(). |
| |
Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > I'm not sure which is are most optimal place to call rcu_barrier(). > The patch probably calls rcu_barrier() too much, but its a better > safe than sorry approach. > > There is embedded some comments that I would like Patrick McHardy > to look at. > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c > index 5f72b94..cea4537 100644 > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c > @@ -1084,6 +1084,8 @@ static void nf_conntrack_cleanup_init_net(void) > { > nf_conntrack_helper_fini(); > nf_conntrack_proto_fini(); > + rcu_barrier(); > + /* Need to wait for call_rcu() before dealloc the kmem_cache */ > kmem_cache_destroy(nf_conntrack_cachep);
Which call_rcu() is this referring to? If its the conntrack destruction, that one is gone in the current kernel and I think destruction is handled properly by the sl*b-allocators (SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU).
> @@ -1118,6 +1120,9 @@ void nf_conntrack_cleanup(struct net *net) > /* This makes sure all current packets have passed through > netfilter framework. Roll on, two-stage module > delete... */ > + /* hawk@comx.dk 2009-06-20: Think this should be replaced by a > + rcu_barrier() ??? > + */ > synchronize_net();
AFAICT this one is used to make sure the old value of the ip_ct_attach hook is not visible anymore before beginning cleanup and is not needed for anything else.
> nf_conntrack_cleanup_net(net); > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_standalone.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_standalone.c > index 1935153..29c6cd0 100644 > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_standalone.c > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_standalone.c > @@ -500,6 +500,8 @@ static void nf_conntrack_net_exit(struct net *net) > nf_conntrack_standalone_fini_sysctl(net); > nf_conntrack_standalone_fini_proc(net); > nf_conntrack_cleanup(net); > + /* hawk@comx.dk: Think rcu_barrier() should to be called earlier? */ > + rcu_barrier(); /* Wait for completion of call_rcu()'s */ > }
Which call_rcu() is this referring to? We should place them in the cleanup sub-functions to make this clearly visible.
|  |