lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Regression caused by commit "netfilter: iptables: lock free counters"
Jan Engelhardt a écrit :
> On Sunday 2009-04-05 12:01, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> This could probably be solved using a single "table" containing
>> rules only, that could be shared for every cpus. Only counters
>> should be percpu. This should save a lot of ram, over previous
>> situation (2.6.29 or current one)
>
> Why would counters stay separate?
>
> I recognize all of this table copying is related to do NUMA
> optimizations, and I think I heard cache bouncing too somewhere else.
>
> [ http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=119903624211253&w=2 ]
>
>

Not only NUMA, but SMP too. counters are integrated in rules themselves.
So in order to avoid ping pongs between cpus, we choose to allocate
one copy of rules/counters per cpu.

But with some changes, we could let the rules read-only and shared by
all cpus, and shadow counters only on percpu variables, thus reducing
memory costs.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-05 14:37    [W:0.390 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site