Re: [RFC PATCH] net: sched: convert qdisc linked list to hashtable (was Re: Deleting child qdisc doesn't reset parent to default qdisc?)

[Jiri Kosina]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> > @@ -1440,6 +1441,7 @@ static int tc_dump_qdisc_root(struct Qdisc *root, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >  {
> >  	int ret = 0, q_idx = *q_idx_p;
> >  	struct Qdisc *q;
> > +	int b;
> >  
> >  	if (!root)
> >  		return 0;
> > @@ -1454,7 +1456,7 @@ static int tc_dump_qdisc_root(struct Qdisc *root, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >  			goto done;
> >  		q_idx++;
> >  	}
> > -	list_for_each_entry(q, &root->list, list) {
> > +	hash_for_each(qdisc_dev(root)->qdisc_hash, b, q, hash) {
> >  		if (q_idx < s_q_idx) {
> >  			q_idx++;
> >  			continue;
> > @@ -1771,6 +1773,7 @@ static int tc_dump_tclass_root(struct Qdisc *root, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >  			       int *t_p, int s_t)
> >  {
> >  	struct Qdisc *q;
> > +	int b;
> >  
> >  	if (!root)
> >  		return 0;
> > @@ -1778,7 +1781,7 @@ static int tc_dump_tclass_root(struct Qdisc *root, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >  	if (tc_dump_tclass_qdisc(root, skb, tcm, cb, t_p, s_t) < 0)
> >  		return -1;
> >  
> > -	list_for_each_entry(q, &root->list, list) {
> > +	hash_for_each_rcu(qdisc_dev(root)->qdisc_hash, b, q, hash) {
> >  		if (tc_dump_tclass_qdisc(q, skb, tcm, cb, t_p, s_t) < 0)
> >  			return -1;
> >  	}
> 
> 
> Not sure why you used the rcu version here, but the non rcu version in
> tc_dump_qdisc_root()

Good catch.

Actually even the current code is odd in this regard -- 
qdisc_match_from_root() uses RCU iterator, while tc_dump_*() use the 
non-RCU one; addition and deletion is performed using RCU primitives.

I haven't got my head around this yet; if it's correct at all, it'd at 
least deserve a comment somewhere.

I'll respin v2 of the patch (there is also a conflict on HASH_SIZE 
definition in ip6_tunnel.c, ip6_gre.c and sit.c due to hashtable.h include 
in netdevice.h that needs to be resolved as well) that'd make RCU usage 
consistent.

Any other objections/comments? I was namely curious about any opinions 
regarding the hashtable size.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs