[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18924.64032.103954.171918@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:41:36 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
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)
Paul E. McKenney writes:
> But a single CPU is acquiring one lock per CPU, so all the increments
> are to one CPU's preempt_count. :-(
OK, I see, so a task can't take more than 255 spinlocks without
overflowing the preempt count, which seems a bit limiting.
There are 6 free bits in the preempt_count currently, so the preempt
count could be expanded to 14 bits, which would be enough for all
current systems. Beyond that I guess we could make preempt_count be a
long and allow bigger counts on 64-bit architectures.
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