From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] iptables: lock free counters Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:18:01 -0800 Message-ID: <499E04C9.4020308@hp.com> References: <20090218051906.174295181@vyatta.com> <20090218052747.321329022@vyatta.com> <20090219114719.560999b5@extreme> <499DEF49.3040602@cosmosbay.com> <499DF1A2.1030405@hp.com> <20090219170318.3f7d54f2@extreme> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Dumazet , David Miller , Patrick McHardy , netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.46]:11649 "EHLO g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755803AbZBTBSG (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:18:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090219170318.3f7d54f2@extreme> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >>>Thanks Stephen, thats very cool stuff, yet another rwlock out of kernel :) >> >>Do you folks need/want further testing against the 32-core setup? > > > It would be good to combine all 3 (iptables-rcu, timer change, and conntrack lock) > to see what the overhead change is. Fair enough. Is there a tree somewhere I can pull with all those in it, or do I need to go back through the emails and apply patches? rick jones