Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: finer grained nf_conn locking

From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:25:52 -0700

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:32:54 +0200 (CEST)
Jan Engelhardt <[email-masked]> 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.