On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 03:37, Vladimir Oltean <olte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 03:06:08PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> +static void dsa_lag_release(struct kref *refcount)
>> +{
>> + struct dsa_lag *lag = container_of(refcount, struct dsa_lag, refcount);
>> +
>> + rcu_assign_pointer(lag->dev, NULL);
>> + synchronize_rcu();
>> + memset(lag, 0, sizeof(*lag));
>> +}
>
> What difference does it make if lag->dev is set to NULL right away or
> after a grace period? Squeezing one last packet from that bonding interface?
> Pointer updates are atomic operations on all architectures that the
> kernel supports, and, as long as you use WRITE_ONCE and READ_ONCE memory
> barriers, there should be no reason for RCU protection that I can see.
> And unlike typical uses of RCU, you do not free lag->dev, because you do
> not own lag->dev. Instead, the bonding interface pointed to by lag->dev
> is going to be freed (in case of a deletion using ip link) after an RCU
> grace period anyway. And the receive data path is under an RCU read-side
> critical section anyway. So even if you set lag->dev to NULL using
> WRITE_ONCE, the existing in-flight readers from the RX data path that
> had called dsa_lag_dev_by_id() will still hold a reference to a valid
> bonding interface.
I completely agree with your analysis. I will remove all the RCU
primitives in v3. Thank you.
