[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090218215140.GA3505@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:51:40 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: shemminger@...tta.com, kaber@...sh.net, rick.jones2@...com,
dada1@...mosbay.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
gandalf@...g.westbo.se, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFT 2/4] Add mod_timer_noact
* David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:01:44 +0100
>
> > * David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> >
> > | Introduce mod_timer_noact() which for example is to replace
> > | the calls to del_timer()/add_timer() in
> > | __nf_ct_refresh_acct(). It works like mod_timer() but doesn't
> > | activate or modify the timeout of an inactive timer which is
> > | the behaviour we want in order to be able to use timers as a
> > | means of synchronization in nf_conntrack.
> >
> > It does not mention the overhead to the regular timer interfaces
> > at all, nor does it explain the reasons for this change
> > adequately.
>
> You (conveniently) skipped this part of his commit message, so
> I guess this is the part you didn't read very carefully:
>
> A later patch will modify __nf_ct_refresh_acct() to use
> mod_timer_noact() which will then save one spin_lock_irqsave()
> / spin_lock_irqrestore() pair per conntrack timer update. This
> will also get rid of the race we currently have without adding
> more locking in nf_conntrack.
>
> The whole point is to avoid two spin_lock_irqsave() sequences, thus
> taking the timer locks twice.
>
> So Ingo, when you say in response:
>
> Why don't you use?
>
> if (del_timer())
> add_timer();
>
> you really look foolish and, in fact, disrespectful to Stephen.
>
> This was my objection to your email, it proved that you didn't
> really read his changelog message. He explained perfectly well
> what the final goal was of his changes.
>
> And you have this knee-jerk reaction quite often.
You accusing me of knee-jerk reaction is the joke of the century
;-)
Anyway, it's all handled, you just need to read the rest of the
thread.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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