On 02/23/15 at 11:12am, josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > In theory, resizes should only take the locks for the buckets they're > currently unzipping, and adds should take those same locks. Neither one > should take a whole-table lock, other than resize excluding concurrent > resizes. Is that still insufficient? Correct, this is what happens. The problem is basically that if we insert from atomic context we cannot slow down inserts and the table may not grow quickly enough. > Yeah, the add/remove statistics used for tracking would need some > special handling to avoid being a table-wide bottleneck. Daniel is working on a patch to do per-cpu element counting with a batched update cycle. -- 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
