From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
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"
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:34:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49D8A56A.8050606@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0904051328030.7501@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Jan Engelhardt a écrit :
> 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 ]
>
>
Not only NUMA, but SMP too. counters are integrated in rules themselves.
So in order to avoid ping pongs between cpus, we choose to allocate
one copy of rules/counters per cpu.
But with some changes, we could let the rules read-only and shared by
all cpus, and shadow counters only on percpu variables, thus reducing
memory costs.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-05 12:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-29 19:47 Regression caused by commit "netfilter: iptables: lock free counters" Roman Mindalev
2009-03-30 7:32 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-30 10:50 ` Roman Mindalev
2009-03-30 12:08 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-03-30 14:56 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-02 7:54 ` David Miller
2009-03-30 12:06 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-05 7:05 ` Graham Murray
2009-04-05 8:22 ` David Miller
2009-04-05 10:01 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-05 10:12 ` Graham Murray
2009-04-05 10:30 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-05 12:29 ` [PATCH] netfilter: ip6tables fix Eric Dumazet
2009-04-05 12:40 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-06 15:08 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-05 11:36 ` Regression caused by commit "netfilter: iptables: lock free counters" Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-05 12:34 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
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=49D8A56A.8050606@cosmosbay.com \
--to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=graham@gmurray.org.uk \
--cc=jengelh@medozas.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox