[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D11635.2050809@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:57:57 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
CC: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: finer grained nf_conn locking
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Hi Patrick
>
> Apparently we could not finish the removal of tcp_lock for 2.6.30 :(
>
> Stephen suggested using a 4 bytes hole in struct nf_conntrack,
> but this is ok only if sizeof(spinlock_t) <= 4 and 64 bit arches.
>
> We could do an hybrid thing : use nf_conn.ct_general.lock if 64 bit arches
> and sizeof(spinlock_t) <= 4.
>
> Other cases would use a carefuly sized array of spinlocks...
>
> Thank you
>
> [PATCH] netfilter: finer grained nf_conn locking
>
> Introduction of fine grained lock infrastructure for nf_conn.
> If possible, we use a 32bit hole on 64bit arches.
> Else we use a global array of hashed spinlocks, so we dont
> change size of "struct nf_conn"
>
> Get rid of central tcp_lock rwlock used in TCP conntracking
> using this infrastructure for better performance on SMP.
>
> "tbench 8" results on my 8 core machine (32bit kernel, with
> conntracking on) : 2319 MB/s instead of 2284 MB/s
Is this an implicit request for me to try to resurrect the 32-core setup?
rick jones
--
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