From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v10) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:23:31 +1000 Message-ID: <18924.59347.375292.102385@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <20090415170111.6e1ca264@nehalam> <49E72E83.50702@trash.net> <20090416.153354.170676392.davem@davemloft.net> <20090416234955.GL6924@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090417012812.GA25534@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090418094001.GA2369@ioremap.net> <20090418141455.GA7082@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090420103414.1b4c490f@nehalam> <49ECBE0A.7010303@cosmosbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Evgeniy Polyakov , David Miller , kaber@trash.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, 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 To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49ECBE0A.7010303@cosmosbay.com> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Eric Dumazet writes: > OK, but we still have a problem on machines with >= 250 cpus, > because calling 250 times spin_lock() is going to overflow preempt_count, > as each spin_lock() increases preempt_count by one. Huh? Each cpu has its own separate preempt_count. Paul.