lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <E1Hpdhs-00069a-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au> Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 15:11:48 +1000 From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> To: davem@...emloft.net (David Miller) Cc: djohnson+linux-kernel@...starentnetworks.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] improved locking performance in rt_run_flush() David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: > From: Dave Johnson <djohnson+linux-kernel@...starentnetworks.com> >> >> The below patch changes rt_run_flush() to only take each spinlock >> protecting the rt_hash_table once instead of taking a spinlock for >> every hash table bucket (and ending up taking the same small set >> of locks over and over). ... > I'm not ignoring it I'm just trying to brainstorm whether there > is a better way to resolve this inefficiency. :-) The main problem I see with this is having to walk and free each chain with the lock held. We could avoid this if we had a pointer in struct rtable to chain them up for freeing later. I just checked and struct rtable is 236 bytes long on 32-bit but the slab cache pads it to 256 bytes so we've got some free space. I suspect 64-bit should be similar. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists