[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090420215827.GK6822@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:58:27 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.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)
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 07:23:31AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> 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.
But a single CPU is acquiring one lock per CPU, so all the increments
are to one CPU's preempt_count. :-(
Thanx, 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