[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49E75AB4.6030701@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:20:04 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com,
paulus@...ba.org, mingo@...e.hu, 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 recursive spinlock (v6)
Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> I also considered using regular spinlocks and spin_trylock() to "detect"
> the recurse case without a global counter.
>
> lock :
> local_bh_disable();
> int locked = spin_trylock(&__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock);
>
> unlock:
>
> if (likely(locked))
> spin_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock));
> local_bh_enable();
>
> But we would lose some runtime features, I dont feel comfortable about
> this trylock version. What others people think ?
>
Oh well, this wont work of course, forget about this trylock thing :)
--
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