On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:10:31 +0100
Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:47:53 -0800
> Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is how I did it:
> >
> > --- a/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c 2008-01-15 09:14:53.000000000 -0800
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c 2008-01-15 09:21:48.000000000 -0800
> > @@ -101,13 +101,6 @@ struct node {
> > t_key key;
> > };
> >
> > -struct leaf {
> > - unsigned long parent;
> > - t_key key;
> > - struct hlist_head list;
> > - struct rcu_head rcu;
> > -};
> > -
> > struct leaf_info {
> > struct hlist_node hlist;
> > struct rcu_head rcu;
> > @@ -115,6 +108,13 @@ struct leaf_info {
> > struct list_head falh;
> > };
> >
> > +struct leaf {
> > + unsigned long parent;
> > + t_key key;
> > + struct hlist_head list;
> > + struct rcu_head rcu;
> > +};
>
> I like this :)
>
> Your design is clean, but we waste some space (rcu in leaf_info "included"),
> we probably can do a litle bit better
> (moving rcu at the end of leaf_info, and kmem_cache_create("ip_fib_trie",
> sizeof(struct leaf) + sizeof(struct_leaf_info) - sizeof(struct rcu_head))
>
>
> > - trie_leaf_kmem = kmem_cache_create("ip_fib_trie", sizeof(struct leaf),
> > + trie_leaf_kmem = kmem_cache_create("ip_fib_trie",
> > + sizeof(struct leaf) + sizeof(struct
> > leaf_info),
> > 0, SLAB_PANIC, NULL);
> > }
> >
> >
>
> Thank you
Having multiple RCU links is a waste. I started on code that just splice's the
leaf_info's off to a free_list and then do a mass free after and RCU barrier.
For the normal case of just freeing a leaf, it could just walk the chain
in the RCU free of the leaf.
--
Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
