@@ -2376,10 +2376,13 @@ void bond_loadbalance_arp_mon(struct work_struct *work)
struct list_head *iter;
int do_failover = 0;
- read_lock(&bond->lock);
+ if (!rtnl_trylock())
+ goto re_arm;
- if (!bond_has_slaves(bond))
+ if (!bond_has_slaves(bond)) {
+ rtnl_unlock();
goto re_arm;
+ }
oldcurrent = bond->curr_active_slave;
/* see if any of the previous devices are up now (i.e. they have
@@ -2454,20 +2457,15 @@ void bond_loadbalance_arp_mon(struct work_struct *work)
if (do_failover) {
block_netpoll_tx();
- write_lock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
-
bond_select_active_slave(bond);
-
- write_unlock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
unblock_netpoll_tx();
}
+ rtnl_unlock();
re_arm:
if (bond->params.arp_interval)
queue_delayed_work(bond->wq, &bond->arp_work,
msecs_to_jiffies(bond->params.arp_interval));
-
- read_unlock(&bond->lock);
}
/*
The bond_loadbalance_arp_mon() use the bond lock to protect the bond slave list, it is no effect, so I could use RTNL or RCU to replace it, the bond_select_active_slave() need RTNL, so whatever the RCU use, the RTNL is need to add, so I choose the RTNL to protect the whole monitor, I still remove the curr_slave_lock for it, because RTNL is enough here. Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com> --- drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 14 ++++++-------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)