Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 01:40:01PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:28:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > +/* Single bit for grace-period index, low-order bits are nesting counter. */
> > +#define RCU_FGP_COUNT		1UL
> > +#define RCU_FGP_PARITY		(1UL << (sizeof(long) << 2))
> > +#define RCU_FGP_NEST_MASK	(RCU_FGP_PARITY - 1)
> > +
> > +extern long rcu_fgp_ctr;
> > +DECLARE_PER_CPU(long, rcu_fgp_active_readers);
> > +
> > +static inline void rcu_read_lock_fgp(void)
> > +{
> > +	long tmp;
> > +	long *uarp;
> > +
> > +	preempt_disable();
> > +	uarp = &__get_cpu_var(rcu_fgp_active_readers);
> > +	tmp = *uarp;
> > +	if (likely(!(tmp & RCU_FGP_NEST_MASK)))
> > +		*uarp = rcu_fgp_ctr;  /* Outermost rcu_read_lock(). */
> > +	else
> > +		*uarp = tmp + RCU_FGP_COUNT;  /* Nested rcu_read_lock(). */
> > +	barrier();
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void rcu_read_unlock_fgp(void)
> > +{
> > +	barrier();
> > +	__get_cpu_var(rcu_fgp_active_readers)--;
> 
> Shouldn't it be rcu_fgp_active_readers - RCU_FGP_COUNT?
> Although it is 1 by definition, it is more clear when understanding
> what's going on here.

Excellent point, fixed!

						Thanx, Paul
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux