netdev - Re: Regression caused by commit "netfilter: iptables: lock free counters"

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: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0904051328030.7501@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:36:46 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, graham@...rray.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Regression caused by commit "netfilter: iptables: lock free
 counters"


On Sunday 2009-04-05 12:01, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>This could probably be solved using a single "table" containing
>rules only, that could be shared for every cpus. Only counters
>should be percpu. This should save a lot of ram, over previous
>situation (2.6.29 or current one)

Why would counters stay separate?

I recognize all of this table copying is related to do NUMA
optimizations, and I think I heard cache bouncing too somewhere else.

[ http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=119903624211253&w=2 ]
--
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