Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755778AbZDNM17 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:27:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753985AbZDNM1q (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:27:46 -0400 Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:62076 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753762AbZDNM1p (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:27:45 -0400 Message-ID: <49E48136.5060700@trash.net> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:27:34 +0200 From: Patrick McHardy User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Hemminger CC: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, David Miller , paulus@samba.org, mingo@elte.hu, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, dada1@cosmosbay.com, jengelh@medozas.de, r000n@r000n.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU References: <20090411174801.GG6822@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <18913.53699.544083.320542@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20090412173108.GO6822@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090412.181330.23529546.davem@davemloft.net> <20090413040413.GQ6822@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090413095309.631cf395@nehalam> In-Reply-To: <20090413095309.631cf395@nehalam> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1004 Lines: 23 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. > > The mutex that was added for 2.6.30 in xt_table is unnecessary since > there already is a mutex for xt[af].mutex that is held. > > Tested basic functionality (add/remove/list), but don't have test cases > for stress, ip6tables or arptables. Thanks Stephen, I'll do some testing with ip6tables. -- 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/