lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49

* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 09:08:54AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I will nevertheless suggest the following egregious hack to
> > > get a consistent sample of one counter for some other CPU:
> > >
> > > a. Disable interrupts
> > > b. Atomically exchange the bottom 32 bits of the
> > > counter with the value zero.
> > > c. Atomically exchange the top 32 bits of the counter
> > > with the value zero.
> > > d. Concatenate the values obtained in (b) and (c), which
> > > is the snapshot value.
> >
> > Note, i have recently implemented full atomic64_t support on 32-bit
> > x86, for the perfcounters code, based on the CMPXCHG8B instruction.
> >
> > Which, while not the lightest of instructions, is still much better
> > than the sequence above.
> >
> > So i think a better approach would be to also add a dumb generic
> > implementation for atomic64_t (using a global lock or so), and then
> > generic code could just assume that atomic64_t always exists.
> >
> > It is far nicer - and faster as well - as the hack above, even on
> > 32-bit x86.
>
> If the generic implementation is needed only on !SMP systems, that
> could work. The architectures I would be worried about include
> powerpc and ia64, which I believe support 32-bit SMP builds.

ia64 would naturally support the CMPXCHG8B instructions.

Not sure about powerpc32. Having a lock for the library
implementation is not _that_ much of a problem. We obviously dont
want the design of Linux to be dictated by the weakest link of all
platforms, right?

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-12 12:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site