[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18924.59347.375292.102385@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:23:31 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com,
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 recursive lock (v10)
Eric Dumazet writes:
> OK, but we still have a problem on machines with >= 250 cpus,
> because calling 250 times spin_lock() is going to overflow preempt_count,
> as each spin_lock() increases preempt_count by one.
Huh? Each cpu has its own separate preempt_count.
Paul.
--
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