From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: Possible regression: Packet drops during iptables calls Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:29:35 +0100 Message-ID: <1292509775.2883.187.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1292337974.9155.68.camel@firesoul.comx.local> <1292340702.5934.5.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1292342958.9155.91.camel@firesoul.comx.local> <1292343855.5934.27.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1292508266.31289.12.camel@firesoul.comx.local> <1292508733.2883.152.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1292509489.31289.20.camel@firesoul.comx.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Steven Rostedt , Alexander Duyck , Stephen Hemminger , netfilter-devel , netdev , Peter P Waskiewicz Jr To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1292509489.31289.20.camel@firesoul.comx.local> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Le jeudi 16 d=C3=A9cembre 2010 =C3=A0 15:24 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brou= er a =C3=A9crit : > In my case I think this will not help. I'll kill the cache anyways, a= s > the ruleset is 19MB and my CPU cache is 8MB. >=20 >=20 Yep ;) By the way, you speak of a 'possible regression', but we always masked BH while doing get_counters(). Only very recent kernels are masking them for each unit (cpu) of work. There was attempt to use a lockless read for each counter (using a seqlock), but it was not completed. I guess we could do something to ressurect this idea. -- 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