On 17/05/21(Mon) 19:52, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote: > [...] > I don't mind to trade pf_lock and pf_state_lock for mutexes, however > I see such step is kind of 'NO-OP'. We do have sufficient measure > currently, which is: keep NET_LOCK() as is. May be I'm not seeing > your idea/plan behind changing pf's rw-locks to mutexes. If you feel > there is a benefit to go that way, then let's do it, but I'd like > to understand where we will be going/what to expect.
I've no idea or plan. I'm just pointing out that using rwlocks, for the moment, add extra work. If it's easy to use mutexes then you might want to start with that. The whole network processing path assumes it runs without sleeping. I've no idea what can happen when this assumption will be broken. I'm well aware that using a single big pf lock is not the best for performances, but maybe it's easier to do baby steps. That said, I don't want to stop or discourage anyone. If you're confident enough that rwlocks are the way to go, then please, go ahead. Cheers, Martin
