David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Florian Westphal <f...@strlen.de>
> Date: Tue,  8 Aug 2017 18:02:29 +0200
> > Unfortunately RTNL mutex is a performance issue, e.g. a cpu adding
> > an ip address prevents other cpus from seemingly unrelated tasks
> > such as dumping tc classifiers.
> It is related if somehow the TC entries refer to IP addresses.
> Someone could create something like that.

Actually I am not following.  Why would read-only accesses need rtnl
locking wrt. any other operation (provided of course rtnl lock doesn't
protect the data structure)?

> > Initial no-rtnl spots are ip6 fib add/del and netns new/getid.
> I could see the netns stuff being ok, but IPv6 route add/del I'm
> not so sure of.


> There really is a hierachy of these dependencies.  Device state, up
> to neighbour table state, up to protocol address state, up to routes,
>    up to FIB tables, etc. etc. etc.
>    I'd really like to make this operate more freely, but this is an
>    extremely delicate area which has been bottled up like this for
>    two decades so good luck :-)

Would you accept a v2 if i don't touch ipv6 routes for the time being?

I would then audit those again.  At the very least inet6_rtm_getroute should
be able to work without rtnl lock (i.e., use a different lock if
needed to protect vs. concurrent modifications).

Reply via email to