Hello!
> I guess IŽd also need to call lock_sock() from sendmsg(). And before
> calling x25_kick from socket input path, IŽd need to verify that
> sk->lock.users is zero. If sk->lock.users was !=0, IŽd need some atomic
> variable anyway in order to defer the kick.
In input path you have a packet. Add it to backlog and processing
will be resumed after lock is released. Compare with tcp.
> serializing the kick. Well, maybe my solution could still be simplified
> (maybe some test_and_set/clear_bit() magic could achieve the same).
Being legal in principle, using non-standard serialization primitives
is seriously deprecated. It is impossible to maintain. In you case,
it is even not evident that it does not lose events with smp.
> - introduce a protocol-global spinlock and protect protocol-global
> critical section by spin_lock_bh() instead of cli()
Why? It is not required. There are no reasons to protect protocol
as whole, if sockets are protected.
> - protect all sock proto_ops methods by lock_sock()
Yes.
> - when bh functions need to be protected from sk state change, they
> need to aquire bh_lock_sock()
And check for sk->lock.users. If it is not zero, operation is deferred.
> - before bh (timer) function change sk state, they need to aquire
> bh_lock_sock and verify, that sk->lock.users!=0
Yes.
> - remove the SOCKOPS_WRAPPED() macro from the proto_ops
Yes. And finally announce protocol to be SMP aware setting data
field of packet_type to 1.
> Can NET_TX_SOFTIRQ be prempted by NET_RX_SOFTIRQ or timer?
It cannot be preempted, but it is not very essential, because
all they can run in parallel on different cpus.
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:12 EST