[Bridge] [PATCH net-next 3/4] bridge: vlan: break vlan_flush in two phases to keep old order

[Nikolay Aleksandrov]

On 10/12/2015 07:39 PM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 02:41:08PM IDT, razor at blackwall.org wrote:
>> From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay at cumulusnetworks.com>
>>
> Hi,
> 
>> Ido Schimmel reported a problem with switchdev devices because of the
>> order change of del_nbp operations, more specifically the move of
>> nbp_vlan_flush() which deletes all vlans and frees vlgrp after the
>> rx_handler has been unregistered. So in order to fix this break
>> vlan_flush in two phases:
>> 1. delete all of vlan_group's vlans
>> 2. destroy rhtable and free vlgrp
>> We execute phase I (free_rht == false) in the same place as before so the
>> vlans can be cleared and free the vlgrp after the rx_handler has been
>> unregistered in phase II (free_rht == true).
> I don't fully understand the reason for the two-phase cleanup. Please
> see below.
>>
>> Reported-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch at mellanox.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay at cumulusnetworks.com>
>> ---
>> Ido: I hope this fixes it for your case, a test would be much appreciated.
> This indeed fixes our switchdev issue. Thanks for the fix!
>>
[snip]
>>
>> -static void __vlan_flush(struct net_bridge_vlan_group *vlgrp)
>> +static void __vlan_flush(struct net_bridge_vlan_group *vlgrp, bool free_rht)
>> {
>> 	struct net_bridge_vlan *vlan, *tmp;
>>
>> 	__vlan_delete_pvid(vlgrp, vlgrp->pvid);
>> 	list_for_each_entry_safe(vlan, tmp, &vlgrp->vlan_list, vlist)
>> 		__vlan_del(vlan);
>> -	rhashtable_destroy(&vlgrp->vlan_hash);
>> -	kfree_rcu(vlgrp, rcu);
>> +
> Why not just issue a synchronize_rcu here and remove the if statement? I
> believe that would also be better for when we remove the bridge device
> itself. It's fully symmetric with init that way.
Hi,
I considered that, but I don't want to issue a second synchronize_rcu() for each
port when deleting them, with this change we avoid a second synchronize_rcu()
and use the rx_handler unregister one. In complex setups with lots of ports
this is a considerable overhead.
For the bridge device del case - the call is the same, there're no two phases
there.

Cheers,
 Nik