Re: nft_hash rhashtable question
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Date: 2015-01-12 22:54:06
On 01/12/2015 02:42 PM, tgraf wrote:
On 01/12/15 at 02:30pm, John Fastabend wrote:quoted
quoted
/* Stop an eventual async resizing */ priv->being_destroyed = true;This aborts and eventual resize in the background.quoted
quoted
mutex_lock(&priv->mutex); <-- get the lock so we have single updaterthis ensures that the resize finished.quoted
quoted
tbl = rht_dereference(priv->tbl, priv); for (i = 0; i < tbl->size; i++) { rht_for_each_entry_safe(he, pos, next, tbl, i, node) nft_hash_elem_destroy(set, he); <-- does a kfree on he? } mutex_unlock(&priv->mutex); <-- release the lock rhashtable_destroy(priv);Since no insert or removal can occur we can be assured that no new entry was added in the meantime so we can destroy the rhashtable without any further protection.quoted
quoted
}Is it really safe to kfree 'he' without waiting a grace period for any rcu readers to drop the reference? I'm considering what happens if nft_hash_destroy runs in parallel with nft_hash_lookup?The nft_set API ensures that a destroy can't occur in parallel to an insertion or removal. All we have to ensure is that any resizing in the background is aborted and completed.
It must also somehow ensure there are no readers with a reference as well. Thanks for the explanation.
If you look at the code before the rhashtable there was no locking
at all:
static void nft_hash_destroy(const struct nft_set *set)
{
const struct nft_hash *priv = nft_set_priv(set);
const struct nft_hash_table *tbl = nft_dereference(priv->tbl);
struct nft_hash_elem *he, *next;
unsigned int i;
for (i = 0; i < tbl->size; i++) {
for (he = nft_dereference(tbl->buckets[i]); he != NULL;
he = next) {
next = nft_dereference(he->next);
nft_hash_elem_destroy(set, he);
}
}
kfree(tbl);
}-- John Fastabend Intel Corporation