netdev - Re: [RFT 4/4] netfilter: Get rid of central rwlock in tcp conntracking

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <499C9881.2080909@trash.net>
Date:	Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:23:45 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	shemminger@...tta.com, rick.jones2@...com, dada1@...mosbay.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFT 4/4] netfilter: Get rid of central rwlock in tcp conntracking

David Miller wrote:
> From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:56:45 +0100
> 
>> Eric already posted a patch to use an array of locks, which is
>> a better approach IMO since it keeps the size of the conntrack
>> entries down.
> 
> Just as a side note, we generally frown upon the
> hash-array-of-spinlocks approach to scalability.
> 
> If you need proof that in the long term it's suboptimal, note that:
> 
> 1) this is Solaris's approach to locking scalability :-)

:)

> 2) every such case in the kernel eventually gets transformed into
>    RCU, a tree/trie based scheme, or some combination of the two
> 
> So maybe for now it's ok, but keep in mind that eventually
> this is certain to change. :)

This case might be different in that a normal firewall use case
probably doesn't have more than 16 cpus, even than would be quite
a lot. So for bigger machines this is probably more about keeping
the "non-use" costs low.

I'll keep it in mind though and I'm interested in seeing how it
turns out in the long term :)
--
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