From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: 32 core net-next stack/netfilter "scaling" Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:25:44 +0100 Message-ID: <49808708.3050502@trash.net> References: <497E361B.30909@hp.com> <497E42F4.7080201@cosmosbay.com> <497E44F6.2010703@hp.com> <497ECF84.1030308@cosmosbay.com> <497ED0A2.6050707@trash.net> <497F350A.9020509@cosmosbay.com> <497F457F.2050802@trash.net> <497F4C2F.9000804@hp.com> <497F5BCD.9060807@hp.com> <497F5F86.9010101@hp.com> <498063E7.5030106@cosmosbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Rick Jones , Netfilter Developers , Linux Network Development list , Stephen Hemminger To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:34902 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751332AbZA1QZr (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:25:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: <498063E7.5030106@cosmosbay.com> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eric Dumazet wrote: > Rick Jones a =E9crit : >> Anyhow, the spread on trans/s/netperf is now 600 to 500 or 6000, whi= ch >> does represent an improvement. >> >=20 > Yes indeed you have a speedup, tcp conntracking is OK. >=20 > You now hit the nf_conntrack_lock spinlock we have in generic conntra= ck code=20 > (net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c) >=20 > nf_ct_refresh_acct() for instance has to lock it. >=20 > We really want some finer locking here. That looks more complicated since it requires to take multiple locks occasionally (f.i. hash insertion, potentially helper-related and expectation-related stuff), and there is the unconfirmed_list, where fine-grained locking can't really be used without changing it to a hash. -- 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