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: <20090218153528.4c3df0f6@extreme>
Date:	Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:35:28 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:23:45 +0100
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> wrote:

> 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 :)

It doesn't help that spinlock_t keeps growing! In good old days,
a spin lock could fit in one byte.
--
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