Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH RFC] TCPCT part 1d: generate Responder Cookie
From: William Allen Simpson <hidden>
Date: 2009-11-02 12:36:12
Also in:
lkml
From: William Allen Simpson <hidden>
Date: 2009-11-02 12:36:12
Also in:
lkml
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.