Alan Cox a écrit :
On Gwe, 2006-01-06 at 11:17 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
I assume that if a CPU queued 10.000 items in its RCU queue, then the oldest
entry cannot still be in use by another CPU. This might sounds as a violation
of RCU rules, (I'm not an RCU expert) but seems quite reasonable.
Fixing the real problem in the routing code would be the real fix.
So far nobody succeeded in 'fixing the routing code', few people can even read
the code from the first line to the last one...
I think this code is not buggy, it only makes general RCU assumptions about
delayed freeing of dst entries. In some cases, the general assumptions are
just wrong. We can fix it at RCU level, and future users of call_rcu_bh() wont
have to think *hard* about 'general assumptions'.
Of course, we can ignore the RCU problem and mark somewhere on a sticker:
***DONT USE OR RISK CRASHES***
***USE IT ONLY FOR FUN***
The underlying problem of RCU and memory usage could be solved more
safely by making sure that the sleeping memory allocator path always
waits until at least one RCU cleanup has occurred after it fails an
allocation before it starts trying harder. That ought to also naturally
throttle memory consumers more in the situation which is the right
behaviour.
In the case of call_rcu_bh(), you can be sure that the caller cannot afford
'sleeping memory allocations'. Better drop a frame than block the stack, no ?
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
