On Thu, 2016-07-07 at 18:32 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > > @@ -1440,6 +1441,7 @@ static int tc_dump_qdisc_root(struct Qdisc *root,
> > > struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > {
> > > int ret = 0, q_idx = *q_idx_p;
> > > struct Qdisc *q;
> > > + int b;
> > >
> > > if (!root)
> > > return 0;
> > > @@ -1454,7 +1456,7 @@ static int tc_dump_qdisc_root(struct Qdisc *root,
> > > struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > goto done;
> > > q_idx++;
> > > }
> > > - list_for_each_entry(q, &root->list, list) {
> > > + hash_for_each(qdisc_dev(root)->qdisc_hash, b, q, hash) {
> > > if (q_idx < s_q_idx) {
> > > q_idx++;
> > > continue;
> > > @@ -1771,6 +1773,7 @@ static int tc_dump_tclass_root(struct Qdisc *root,
> > > struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > int *t_p, int s_t)
> > > {
> > > struct Qdisc *q;
> > > + int b;
> > >
> > > if (!root)
> > > return 0;
> > > @@ -1778,7 +1781,7 @@ static int tc_dump_tclass_root(struct Qdisc *root,
> > > struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > if (tc_dump_tclass_qdisc(root, skb, tcm, cb, t_p, s_t) < 0)
> > > return -1;
> > >
> > > - list_for_each_entry(q, &root->list, list) {
> > > + hash_for_each_rcu(qdisc_dev(root)->qdisc_hash, b, q, hash) {
> > > if (tc_dump_tclass_qdisc(q, skb, tcm, cb, t_p, s_t) < 0)
> > > return -1;
> > > }
> >
> >
> > Not sure why you used the rcu version here, but the non rcu version in
> > tc_dump_qdisc_root()
>
> Good catch.
>
> Actually even the current code is odd in this regard --
> qdisc_match_from_root() uses RCU iterator,
Because it can be run from qdisc enqueue() dequeue(), not holding RTNL.
> while tc_dump_*() use the
> non-RCU one; addition and deletion is performed using RCU primitives.
It really is protected by RTNL (qdiscs can not change during the dump)
>
> I haven't got my head around this yet; if it's correct at all, it'd at
> least deserve a comment somewhere.
>
> I'll respin v2 of the patch (there is also a conflict on HASH_SIZE
> definition in ip6_tunnel.c, ip6_gre.c and sit.c due to hashtable.h include
> in netdevice.h that needs to be resolved as well) that'd make RCU usage
> consistent.
>
> Any other objections/comments? I was namely curious about any opinions
> regarding the hashtable size.
Well, this is the tricky part, but rhashtable would mean way more
changes...
