Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | Deepa Dinamani <> | Date | Sat, 22 Dec 2018 08:34:55 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sock: Make sock->sk_tstamp thread-safe |
| |
> Are we actually worried about concurrent writers here? I thought the > only problem was a race between writer and reader, which would mean > that we could solve it using only a seqcount_t which is cheaper to > update than a seqlock_t.
I considered using just the seqcount_t. But, I think we do care about concurrent writers here. A couple of scenarios I can think of:
1. When you have 2 concurrent recvmsg() calls on a socket, and they both try to update sk_tstamp. 2. If a socket has don't have one of the SO_TIMESTAMP/NS options set and you have a first recvmsg and a concurrent ioctl call on the socket.
These are corner cases and if we don't care aout these then we can use just the sequence counters.
I have missed out tstamp update in the sunrcpc code. If everyone is ok with this approach, I will add it in when I post an update
-Deepa
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |