From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
rick.jones2@hp.com, dada1@cosmosbay.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFT 4/4] netfilter: Get rid of central rwlock in tcp conntracking
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:35:28 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090218153528.4c3df0f6@extreme> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <499C9881.2080909@trash.net>
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:23:45 +0100
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
> > From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
> > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:56:45 +0100
> >
> >> Eric already posted a patch to use an array of locks, which is
> >> a better approach IMO since it keeps the size of the conntrack
> >> entries down.
> >
> > Just as a side note, we generally frown upon the
> > hash-array-of-spinlocks approach to scalability.
> >
> > If you need proof that in the long term it's suboptimal, note that:
> >
> > 1) this is Solaris's approach to locking scalability :-)
>
> :)
>
> > 2) every such case in the kernel eventually gets transformed into
> > RCU, a tree/trie based scheme, or some combination of the two
> >
> > So maybe for now it's ok, but keep in mind that eventually
> > this is certain to change. :)
>
> This case might be different in that a normal firewall use case
> probably doesn't have more than 16 cpus, even than would be quite
> a lot. So for bigger machines this is probably more about keeping
> the "non-use" costs low.
>
> I'll keep it in mind though and I'm interested in seeing how it
> turns out in the long term :)
It doesn't help that spinlock_t keeps growing! In good old days,
a spin lock could fit in one byte.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-18 23:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-18 5:19 [RFT 0/4] Netfilter/iptables performance improvements Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-18 5:19 ` [RFT 1/4] iptables: lock free counters Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-18 10:02 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-19 19:47 ` [PATCH] " Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-19 23:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-19 23:56 ` Rick Jones
2009-02-20 1:03 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-20 1:18 ` Rick Jones
2009-02-20 9:42 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-20 22:57 ` Rick Jones
2009-02-21 0:35 ` Rick Jones
2009-02-20 9:37 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-20 18:10 ` [PATCH] iptables: xt_hashlimit fix Eric Dumazet
2009-02-20 18:33 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-02-28 1:54 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-02-28 6:56 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-28 8:22 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-02-24 14:31 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-27 14:02 ` [PATCH] iptables: lock free counters Eric Dumazet
2009-02-27 16:08 ` [PATCH] rcu: increment quiescent state counter in ksoftirqd() Eric Dumazet
2009-02-27 16:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-27 16:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-02 10:55 ` [PATCH] iptables: lock free counters Patrick McHardy
2009-03-02 17:47 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-02 21:56 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-03-02 22:02 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-03-02 22:07 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-03-02 22:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-02 22:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-18 5:19 ` [RFT 2/4] Add mod_timer_noact Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-18 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 9:30 ` David Miller
2009-02-18 11:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 11:39 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-02-18 12:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 12:33 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 21:39 ` David Miller
2009-02-18 21:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 22:04 ` David Miller
2009-02-18 22:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-02-18 22:47 ` David Miller
2009-02-18 22:56 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-18 10:07 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 12:05 ` [patch] timers: add mod_timer_pending() Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 12:33 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 12:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 12:54 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 13:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 17:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-02-18 18:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 18:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-02-18 19:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 10:29 ` [RFT 2/4] Add mod_timer_noact Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 5:19 ` [RFT 3/4] Use mod_timer_noact to remove nf_conntrack_lock Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-18 9:54 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 11:05 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-02-18 11:08 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 14:01 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-18 14:04 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 14:22 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-18 14:27 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 5:19 ` [RFT 4/4] netfilter: Get rid of central rwlock in tcp conntracking Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-18 9:56 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 14:17 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-19 22:03 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-03-28 16:55 ` [PATCH] netfilter: finer grained nf_conn locking Eric Dumazet
2009-03-29 0:48 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-03-30 19:57 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-30 20:05 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-06 12:07 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-06 12:32 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-06 17:25 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-03-30 18:57 ` Rick Jones
2009-03-30 19:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-30 19:38 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-03-30 19:54 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-30 20:34 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-03-30 20:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-30 21:25 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-03-30 22:44 ` Rick Jones
2009-02-18 21:55 ` [RFT 4/4] netfilter: Get rid of central rwlock in tcp conntracking David Miller
2009-02-18 23:23 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 23:35 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2009-02-18 8:30 ` [RFT 0/4] Netfilter/iptables performance improvements Eric Dumazet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090218153528.4c3df0f6@extreme \
--to=shemminger@vyatta.com \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rick.jones2@hp.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.