Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
quoted text
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:40:01 +0100
> Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:

quoted text
>>
>> [PATCH] udp: Introduce special NULL pointers for hlist termination
>>
>> In order to safely detect changes in chains, we would like to have different
>> 'NULL' pointers. Each chain in hash table is terminated by an unique 'NULL'
>> value, so that the lockless readers can detect their lookups evaded from
>> their starting chain.
>>
>> We introduce a new type of hlist implementation, named hlist_nulls, were
>> we use the least significant bit of the 'ptr' to tell if its a "NULL" value
>> or a pointer to an object. We expect to use this new hlist variant for TCP
>> as well.
>>
>> For UDP/UDP-Lite hash table, we use 128 different "NULL" values,
>> (UDP_HTABLE_SIZE=128)
>>
>> Using hlist_nulls saves memory barriers (a read barrier to fetch 'next'
>> pointers *before* checking key values) we added in commit 
>> 96631ed16c514cf8b28fab991a076985ce378c26
>> (udp: introduce sk_for_each_rcu_safenext())
>>
>> This also saves a write memory barrier in udp_lib_get_port(), between
>> sk->sk_hash update and sk->next update)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
>> ---
> 
> IMHO this goes over the edge into tricky hack. Is it really worth it?
> Is there a better simpler way?

rwlocks , spinlocks, seqlocks :)

More seriously Stephen, if the infrastructure is clean, and well tested on a relative
simple case (UDP), it can then be deployed on a much more interesting protocol : TCP

The moment we switch to RCU, we have to accept the pain of really understand what
we did. Details are scary yes.


--
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