Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757643AbZDELhF (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:37:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752340AbZDELgu (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:36:50 -0400 Received: from sovereign.computergmbh.de ([85.214.69.204]:47762 "EHLO sovereign.computergmbh.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751565AbZDELgt (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:36:49 -0400 Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:36:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Jan Engelhardt To: Eric Dumazet cc: David Miller , graham@gmurray.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Regression caused by commit "netfilter: iptables: lock free counters" In-Reply-To: <49D88162.5040809@cosmosbay.com> Message-ID: References: <20090329234702.4988017f@desktop.r000n.info> <8763hja8cy.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk> <20090405.012237.198610462.davem@davemloft.net> <49D88162.5040809@cosmosbay.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 753 Lines: 19 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 linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/