From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: don't disable BH again in BH disabled context Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:22:27 +0200 Message-ID: <1285161747.2639.413.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1282027297-9998-1-git-send-email-xiaosuo@gmail.com> <1282028127.2487.754.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Patrick McHardy , "David S. Miller" , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Changli Gao Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Le mercredi 22 septembre 2010 =C3=A0 18:20 +0800, Changli Gao a =C3=A9c= rit : > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > Its a thing that might change in a future version. Not a hard fact. > > > > You can probably change iptables to allow softirqs while processing > > OUTPUT chains. > > > > We had some attempts in the past to switch to RCU. > > > > It failed at that time because of some RCU implementation details, = but > > with recent RCU changes, we might try again, and have a clean > > implementation, allowing softirqs. > > > > So your patch would need to be reverted. > > >=20 > So the smp_processor_id() in xt_cpu.c should be replaced with > raw_smp_processor_id()? >=20 Using smp_processor_id() is better. This provides automatic checking. If we change output processing to allow softirqs, that doesnt mean we allow preemption or cpu migration :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-dev= el" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html