[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48572B03.1050602@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:09:55 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Patrick Mullaney <pmullaney@...ell.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
Gregory Haskins <GHaskins@...ell.com>, chuck.lever@...cle.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Killing sk->sk_callback_lock (was Re: [PATCH] net/core/sock.c
remove extra wakeup)
Herbert Xu a écrit :
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 07:38:23PM -0600, Patrick Mullaney wrote:
>> I don't follow but I wasn't part of the IRC discussion. :-) Please
>> send me a note out of band if you would like to discuss again on IRC.
>> I agree that the sk_callback_lock may be significant overhead
>> (although lockstat is not showing it to be highly contended).
>
> Lock contention doesn't matter! The worst problem with read-write
> locks is cache-line bouncing. That is, read locks will grab cache
> lines from other read locks thus causing performance to go down
> the drain if read locks are common (which is the only scenario
> where you use read-write locks anyway). Moral of the story is
> that read-write locks are bad.
>
> Cheers,
Yes, read-write locks are bad (not the concept itself, only their
implementation) but alternatives are complex to setup and maintain.
ipt_do_table() for example hits a read-write lock for every packet
handled on a chain. This is why firewalling sucks even with few rules.
--
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