Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 20:55:41 -0600 From: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ipv6 lock contention with parallel socket io Message-ID: <52C626AD.5030606@vangyzen.net> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmom-qghnACRdU9xX5wg9jZLYqvUQe=aD2GkheMNtseekzg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-VmoknC7TszvhonHgFq6mJNpgUmvXAjAH3uK9TMU0uMzcocw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonNDMZpCrojXRP92cUxzMKox_QX_5tBXjGM6kjei=oqjw@mail.gmail.com> <52C5A020.9010404@vangyzen.net> <CAJ-Vmom-qghnACRdU9xX5wg9jZLYqvUQe=aD2GkheMNtseekzg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> However, the assertion in in6_lltable_lookup() seems insufficient. It >> asserts any lock on afdata. I think it should also assert a write-lock >> in the LLE_CREATE case. >> >> Granted, this is not strictly related to your change. > > Would you mind doing up a quick patch to demonstrate? Sure. http://www.vangyzen.net/FreeBSD/patches/in6_lltable_lookup_wlock_assert.diff This is not even compile-tested. > I've heard mumblings at work that ipv6 panics if you change the > routing tables during active traffic so if we're missing lock > assertions I'd like to add them now and try to pick up the problem as > it happens in testing. Excellent idea. Good luck, and thank you. Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52C626AD.5030606>