[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 17:05:04 +0200
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Netfilter Development Mailinglist
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] netfilter: get rid of atomic ops in fast
path
On 03.04.2011 15:15, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> We currently use a percpu spinlock to 'protect' rule bytes/packets
> counters, after various attempts to use RCU instead.
>
> Lately we added a seqlock so that get_counters() can run without
> blocking BH or 'writers'. But we really only need the seqcount in it.
>
> Spinlock itself is only locked by the current/owner cpu, so we can
> remove it completely.
>
> This cleanups api, using correct 'writer' vs 'reader' semantic.
>
> At replace time, the get_counters() call makes sure all cpus are done
> using the old table.
Applied, thanks Eric.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists