[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904280931360.22156@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
mingo@...e.hu, dada1@...mosbay.com, zbr@...emap.net,
peterz@...radead.org, jarkao2@...il.com, paulus@...ba.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, kaber@...sh.net,
jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, 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: revised locking for x_tables
Ack.
It could do with the update from Eric about how non-current CPU writelocks
only require preemp-disable around get_counters() (and then the
local_bh_disable() only around the current-CPU case).
I _think_ get_counters() is the only case that can use that optimization,
but it's quite possible that it's worth doing especially for machines with
lots of cores, if BH latency is an issue (and it might be).
Of course, for the lots-and-lots of cores case, even the preemption
disable might be an issue. And then it really does get much more
complicated. At that point, you probably want the RCU thing.
Linus
--
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