Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755180AbZDUJWk (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:22:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755648AbZDUJW0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:22:26 -0400 Received: from kandzendo.ru ([195.178.208.66]:45991 "EHLO tservice.net.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752852AbZDUJWZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:22:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:22:23 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Lai Jiangshan , Stephen Hemminger , Paul Mackerras , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, David Miller , kaber@trash.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu, jengelh@medozas.de, r000n@r000n.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11) Message-ID: <20090421092223.GA19049@ioremap.net> References: <20090420215827.GK6822@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <18924.64032.103954.171918@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20090420160121.268a8226@nehalam> <49ED406F.2040401@cn.fujitsu.com> <49ED4407.8010200@cosmosbay.com> <49ED5813.1000803@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090420224540.30d7b0ed@nehalam> <49ED6D2E.5060808@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090421081649.GA16782@ioremap.net> <49ED8A1F.7090506@cosmosbay.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49ED8A1F.7090506@cosmosbay.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1152 Lines: 39 On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:55:59AM +0200, Eric Dumazet (dada1@cosmosbay.com) wrote: > Maybe just dont care about calling several time local_bh_disable() > (since we were doing this in previous kernels anyway, we used to call read_lock_bh()) > > This shortens fastpath, is faster than local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore(), > and looks better. Yeah, given that non-nested locking is more likely condition, it will be even faster than preemption case. > void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void) > { > struct xt_info_lock *lock; > > local_bh_disable(); > lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks); > if (likely(++lock->depth == 0)) > spin_lock(&lock->lock); > } > > void xt_info_rdunlock_bh(void) > { > struct xt_info_lock *lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks); > > BUG_ON(lock->depth < 0); > if (likely(--lock->depth < 0)) > spin_unlock(&lock->lock); > local_bh_enable(); > } > > -- Evgeniy Polyakov -- 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/