Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:53:10 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: rozhuk.im@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ng_bridge and locks Message-ID: <20120124145310.GC48157@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4f1dcc8e.45c8cc0a.2935.2254@mx.google.com> References: <4f1dcc8e.45c8cc0a.2935.2254@mx.google.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 06:09:30AM +0900, rozhuk.im@gmail.com wrote: r> I found a comment in the code: r> /* r> * This node has all kinds of stuff that could be screwed by SMP. r> * Until it gets it's own internal protection, we go through in r> * single file. This could hurt a machine bridging beteen two r> * GB ethernets so it should be fixed. r> * When it's fixed the process SHOULD NOT SLEEP, spinlocks please! r> * (and atomic ops ) r> */ r> r> mtx_init(...., MTX_DEF); r> How bad to use netgraph node MTX_DEF mutex? It would be correct to use MTX_DEF mutex to lock the ng_bridge node. You need smth like a mutex per hash entry, and if all done correctly, then you can remove NG_NODE_FORCE_WRITER(). -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120124145310.GC48157>