[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090411070854.GC11799@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:08:54 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, shemminger@...tta.com,
jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, dada1@...mosbay.com, jengelh@...ozas.de,
kaber@...sh.net, r000n@...0n.net,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: iptables very slow after commit
784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49
* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> I will nevertheless suggest the following egregious hack to
> get a consistent sample of one counter for some other CPU:
>
> a. Disable interrupts
> b. Atomically exchange the bottom 32 bits of the
> counter with the value zero.
> c. Atomically exchange the top 32 bits of the counter
> with the value zero.
> d. Concatenate the values obtained in (b) and (c), which
> is the snapshot value.
Note, i have recently implemented full atomic64_t support on 32-bit
x86, for the perfcounters code, based on the CMPXCHG8B instruction.
Which, while not the lightest of instructions, is still much better
than the sequence above.
So i think a better approach would be to also add a dumb generic
implementation for atomic64_t (using a global lock or so), and then
generic code could just assume that atomic64_t always exists.
It is far nicer - and faster as well - as the hack above, even on
32-bit x86.
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