[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090417.010710.59150850.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: dada1@...mosbay.com, shemminger@...tta.com, kaber@...sh.net,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, 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, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3)
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:40:32 -0700
> I completely agree that this RCU is absolutely -not- 2.6.30 material. ;-)
I don't understand why we're writing such complicated code.
Oh I see why, it's because not every arch uses the generic SMP helpers
yet :-)
Because if they did universally, we could solve this problem so
simply, by merely sending a remote softirq to every online cpu. Once
those all complete we have enough of a quiesce period, every cpu must
have exited any netfilter packet processing code path they were in.
And we could know they complete using an atomic counter or something.
--
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