[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090421193924.GA24404@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:39:24 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
jengelh@...ozas.de, r000n@...0n.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)
* Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> wrote:
> +void xt_info_wrunlock_bh(void)
> + __releases(xt_info_lock)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> +#if NR_CPUS > (PREEMPT_MASK - 1)
> + /*
> + * Spin_unlock calls preempt_enable, but since we had
> + * to adjust the count in xt_info_wrlock_bh, do it again
> + */
> + preempt_disable();
> +#endif
> + write_unlock(&per_cpu(xt_info_locks, i));
> + }
> + local_bh_enable();
> +}
In the global/local lock scheme i proposed this would become:
global_write_unlock(void)
{
write_unlock(&global_lock);
}
As we dont hold the local locks during the write-locked critical
section. No loop needed over CPUs, no preempt nesting complications,
no lockdep complications, etc.
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