On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:32:54 +0200 (CEST) Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Monday 2009-04-06 14:07, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>> > >>> if LOCKDEP is on, size of a spinlock is 64 bytes on x86_64. > >>> Adding a spinlock on each nf_conn would be too expensive. In this > >>> case, an array of spinlock is a good compromise, as done in > >>> IP route cache, tcp ehash, ... > >> > >> IMO having different locking based on lockdep and architecture is an > >> invitation > >> to future obscure problems. Perhaps some other locking method or shrinking > >> ct entry would be better. > > > > I agree. Do people enable lockdep on production machines? > > They do not.[1] > > > [1] http://git.opensuse.org/?p=people/jblunck/kernel-source.git;a=blob;f=config/x86_64/default;hb=SL111_BRANCH IMHO If they enable lockdep, they can expect that the cost is non-zero. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
