On Tue 23 Apr 2019 at 19:51, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 07:34:20 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> >> @@ -382,6 +395,8 @@ static void fl_hw_destroy_filter(struct tcf_proto
>> >> *tp, struct cls_fl_filter *f,
>> >>
>> >> tc_setup_cb_call(block, TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER, &cls_flower, fa
On Tue 23 Apr 2019 at 19:52, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-04-23 at 07:43 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> On Mon 22 Apr 2019 at 23:34, Saeed Mahameed
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 10:21 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> > > Recent changes that introduced unlocked flower did not properly
>>
On Tue, 2019-04-23 at 07:43 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Mon 22 Apr 2019 at 23:34, Saeed Mahameed
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 10:21 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> > > Recent changes that introduced unlocked flower did not properly
> > > account for
> > > case when reoffload is initiated conc
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 07:34:20 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >> @@ -382,6 +395,8 @@ static void fl_hw_destroy_filter(struct tcf_proto *tp,
> >> struct cls_fl_filter *f,
> >>
> >>tc_setup_cb_call(block, TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER, &cls_flower, false);
> >>spin_lock(&tp->lock);
> >> + if (!list_empty
On Mon 22 Apr 2019 at 23:34, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 10:21 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> Recent changes that introduced unlocked flower did not properly
>> account for
>> case when reoffload is initiated concurrently with filter updates. To
>> fix
>> the issue, extend flower
On Tue 23 Apr 2019 at 00:02, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 10:21:34 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> Recent changes that introduced unlocked flower did not properly account for
>> case when reoffload is initiated concurrently with filter updates. To fix
>> the issue, extend flower with
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 10:21:34 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> Recent changes that introduced unlocked flower did not properly account for
> case when reoffload is initiated concurrently with filter updates. To fix
> the issue, extend flower with 'hw_filters' list that is used to store
> filters that don
On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 10:21 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> Recent changes that introduced unlocked flower did not properly
> account for
> case when reoffload is initiated concurrently with filter updates. To
> fix
> the issue, extend flower with 'hw_filters' list that is used to store
> filters that
Recent changes that introduced unlocked flower did not properly account for
case when reoffload is initiated concurrently with filter updates. To fix
the issue, extend flower with 'hw_filters' list that is used to store
filters that don't have 'skip_hw' flag set. Filter is added to the list
when it
On Thu 18 Apr 2019 at 20:46, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:33:22 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> Considering this, I tried to improve my solution to remove possibility
>> of multiple adds of same filter and it seems to me that it would be
>> enough to move hw_filters list managemen
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 18:13:37 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Thu 18 Apr 2019 at 21:02, Jakub Kicinski
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 17:58:26 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >> On Thu 18 Apr 2019 at 20:46, Jakub Kicinski
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:33:22 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
On Thu 18 Apr 2019 at 21:02, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 17:58:26 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> On Thu 18 Apr 2019 at 20:46, Jakub Kicinski
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:33:22 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> >> Considering this, I tried to improve my solution to remove po
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 17:58:26 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Thu 18 Apr 2019 at 20:46, Jakub Kicinski
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:33:22 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >> Considering this, I tried to improve my solution to remove possibility
> >> of multiple adds of same filter and it seems
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:33:22 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> Considering this, I tried to improve my solution to remove possibility
> of multiple adds of same filter and it seems to me that it would be
> enough to move hw_filters list management in flower offloads functions:
> add filter to list while
On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 19:34, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 07:29:36 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 00:49, Jakub Kicinski
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:20:47 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> >> @@ -1551,6 +1558,10 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, st
On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 19:34, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 07:29:36 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 00:49, Jakub Kicinski
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:20:47 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> >> @@ -1551,6 +1558,10 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, st
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 07:29:36 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 00:49, Jakub Kicinski
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:20:47 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >> @@ -1551,6 +1558,10 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct
> >> sk_buff *in_skb,
> >>goto errout_ma
On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 00:49, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:20:47 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> @@ -1551,6 +1558,10 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct sk_buff
>> *in_skb,
>> goto errout_mask;
>>
>> if (!tc_skip_hw(fnew->flags)) {
>> +spi
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:20:47 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> @@ -1551,6 +1558,10 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct sk_buff
> *in_skb,
> goto errout_mask;
>
> if (!tc_skip_hw(fnew->flags)) {
> + spin_lock(&tp->lock);
> + list_add(&fnew->hw_lis
Recent changes that introduced unlocked flower did not properly account for
case when reoffload is initiated concurrently with filter updates. To fix
the issue, extend flower with 'hw_filters' list that is used to store
filters that don't have 'skip_hw' flag set. Filter is added to the list
before
20 matches
Mail list logo
