On Thursday 01 November 2007 11:16:20 Eric Dumazet wrote: Looks good from a quick look. Thanks for doing that work.
Some quick comments: > +#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) > +/* > + * Instead of using one rwlock for each inet_ehash_bucket, we use a table of > locks > + * The size of this table is a power of two and depends on the number of > CPUS. > + */ This shouldn't be hard coded based on NR_CPUS, but be done on runtime based on num_possible_cpus(). This is better for kernels with a large NR_CPUS, but which typically run on much smaller systems (like distribution kernels) Also the EHASH_LOCK_SZ == 0 special case is a little strange. Why did you add that? And as a unrelated node have you tried converting the rwlocks into normal spinlocks? spinlocks should be somewhat cheaper because they have less cache protocol overhead and with the huge thash tables in Linux the chain walks should be short anyways so not doing this in parallel is probably not a big issue. At some point I also had a crazy idea of using a special locking scheme that special cases the common case that a hash chain has only one member and doesn't take a look for that at all. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
