Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH RFC] TCPCT part 1d: generate Responder Cookie

[William Allen Simpson]

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> cookie_hash() runs in a non preemptable context. CPU cannot change under us.
>
> (or else, we would not use __get_cpu_var(ipv4_cookie_scratch); )
>
> And of course, each cpu gets its own scratch area, thanks to __get_cpu_var()
Interesting.  I'm not sure that running CPU intensive functions like SHA1 in
a non-preemptable context is a good idea.  I'd assumed it wasn't!

Perhaps you could point at the documentation in the code that explains this?
Perhaps a function header comment that mentions it?

All I know is (from testing) that the tcp_minisockets.c caller is sometimes
called in a fashion that requires atomic allocation, and other times does not!

See my "Subject: query: tcpdump versus atomic?" thread from Oct 14th.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/