[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0904132102030.10428@wlug.westbo.se>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:06:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: Martin Josefsson <gandalf@...fs.se>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
paulus@...ba.org, mingo@...e.hu, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com,
dada1@...mosbay.com, jengelh@...ozas.de, kaber@...sh.net,
r000n@...0n.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> This is an alternative version of ip/ip6/arp tables locking using
> per-cpu locks. This avoids the overhead of synchronize_net() during
> update but still removes the expensive rwlock in earlier versions.
>
> The idea for this came from an earlier version done by Eric Duzamet.
> Locking is done per-cpu, the fast path locks on the current cpu
> and updates counters. The slow case involves acquiring the locks on
> all cpu's.
Doesn't spin_lock() result in a pipeline flush on x86?
iirc there was a benchmark in an RCU paper that tested using per cpu
spin_locks and the result was that it didn't scale well at all.
/Martin
--
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