[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090414.202359.07968871.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: shemminger@...tta.com
Cc: dada1@...mosbay.com, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, kaber@...sh.net,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@...ba.org, mingo@...e.hu,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
jengelh@...ozas.de, r000n@...0n.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3)
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:13:51 -0700
> This is an alternative version of ip/ip6/arp tables locking using
> per-cpu locks. This avoids the overhead of synchronize_net() during
> update but still removes the expensive rwlock in earlier versions.
>
> The idea for this came from an earlier version done by Eric Dumazet.
> Locking is done per-cpu, the fast path locks on the current cpu
> and updates counters. The slow case involves acquiring the locks on
> all cpu's.
>
> The mutex that was added for 2.6.30 in xt_table is unnecessary since
> there already is a mutex for xt[af].mutex that is held.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Things seem to be winding down, good. :-)
I'll let Patrick McHardy merge this to me with his other pending
netfilter fixes.
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists