On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 10:47:01PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ah! This net_mutex is different than RTNL. Should synchronize_net() be
> >> modified to check for net_mutex being held in addition to the current
> >> checks for RTNL being held?
> >>
> >
> > Good point!
> >
> > Like commit be3fc413da9eb17cce0991f214ab0, checking
> > for net_mutex for this case seems to be an optimization, I assume
> > synchronize_rcu_expedited() and synchronize_rcu() have the same
> > behavior...
>
> Thinking a bit more, I think commit be3fc413da9eb17cce0991f
> gets wrong on rtnl_is_locked(), the lock could be locked by other
> process not by the current one, therefore it should be
> lockdep_rtnl_is_held() which, however, is defined only when LOCKDEP
> is enabled... Sigh.
>
> I don't see any better way than letting callers decide if they want the
> expedited version or not, but this requires changes of all callers of
> synchronize_net(). Hm.
I must confess that I don't understand how it would help to use an
expedited grace period when some other process is holding RTNL.
In contrast, I do well understand how it helps when the current process
is holding RTNL.
So what am I missing here?
Thanx, Paul
