Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 11:50 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> > other->sk_data_ready(other); >> > + unix_state_unlock(other); > > > Also, problem with such construct is that we wakeup a thread that will > block on the lock we hold. > > Beauty of sk_data_ready() is to call it once we hold no lock any more, > to enable another cpu to immediately proceed. > > In this case, 'other' can not disappear, so it should be safe.
I do agree that keeping the ->sk_data_ready outside of the lock will very likely have performance advantages. That's just something I wouldn't have undertaken because I'd be reluctant to make a fairly complicated change to a lot of code in order to improve performance unless performance was actually found to be lacking and because it would step onto to many different people's turf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
