lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
    Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
    > On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 08:52:02PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
    >> Dipankar Sarma a écrit :
    >>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 01:51:23PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 13:00 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
    >>>>> OK, now we are making progress.
    >>>> I spoke too soon, it's not fixed:
    >>>>
    >>>> preemption latency trace v1.1.5 on 2.6.16-rc1
    >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>>> latency: 4183 us, #3676/3676, CPU#0 | (M:rt VP:0, KP:0, SP:0 HP:0)
    >>>> -----------------
    >>>> evolutio-2877 0d.s. 97us : local_bh_enable (rt_run_flush)
    >>>> evolutio-2877 0d.s. 98us : local_bh_enable (rt_run_flush)
    >>>> evolutio-2877 0d.s. 99us : local_bh_enable (rt_run_flush)
    >>>> evolutio-2877 0d.s. 100us : local_bh_enable (rt_run_flush)
    >>>> evolutio-2877 0d.s. 101us : local_bh_enable (rt_run_flush)
    >>>>
    >>>> [ etc ]
    >>>>
    >>>> evolutio-2877 0d.s. 4079us : local_bh_enable (rt_run_flush)
    >>>> evolutio-2877 0d.s. 4080us : local_bh_enable (rt_run_flush)
    >>> I am not sure if I am interpreting the latency trace right,
    >>> but it seems that there is a difference between the problem
    >>> you were seeing earlier and now.
    >>>
    >>> In one of your earlier traces, I saw -
    >>>
    >>> <idle>-0 0d.s. 182us : dst_destroy (dst_rcu_free)
    >>> <idle>-0 0d.s. 183us : ipv4_dst_destroy (dst_destroy)
    >>>
    >>> [ etc - zillions of dst_rcu_free()s deleted ]
    >>>
    >>> <idle>-0 0d.s. 13403us : dst_rcu_free (__rcu_process_callbacks)
    >>> <idle>-0 0d.s. 13403us : dst_destroy (dst_rcu_free)
    >>>
    >>> This points to latency increase caused by lots and lots of
    >>> RCU callbacks doing dst_rcu_free(). Do you still see those ?
    >>>
    >>> Your new trace shows that we are held up in in rt_run_flush().
    >>> I guess we need to investigate why we spend so much time in rt_run_flush(),
    >>> because of a big route table or the lock acquisitions.
    >> Some machines have millions of entries in their route cache.
    >>
    >> I suspect we cannot queue all them (or only hash heads as your previous
    >> patch) by RCU. Latencies and/or OOM can occur.
    >>
    >> What can be done is :
    >>
    >> in rt_run_flush(), allocate a new empty hash table, and exchange the hash
    >> tables.
    >>
    >> Then wait a quiescent/grace RCU period (may be the exact term is not this
    >> one, sorry, I'm not RCU expert)
    >>
    >> Then free all the entries from the old hash table (direclty of course, no
    >> need for RCU grace period), and free the hash table.
    >>
    >> As the hash table can be huge, we might need allocate it at boot time, just
    >> in case a flush is needed (it usually is :) ). If we choose dynamic
    >> allocation and this allocation fails, then fallback to what is done today.
    >
    > Interesting approach!
    >
    > If I remember correctly, the point of all of this is to perturb the hash
    > function periodically in order to avoid DoS attacks. It will likely
    > be necessary to avoid a big performance hit during the transition.
    > One way of doing this, given your two-table scheme, would be to:
    >
    > o Allocate both tables at boot time, as you suggest above.
    >
    > o Keep the following additional state:
    >
    > o Pointer to the table that is the current table.
    >
    > o First valid index (fvl) into the current table -- all
    > indexes below the fvl correspond to hash buckets that
    > have been transferred into the non-current table.
    > In the normal case where the tables are not being
    > switched, fvl==-1.
    >
    > (To make the RCU searches work without requiring
    > tons of explicit memory barriers, there needs to
    > be a separate fvl for each of the tables.)
    >
    > o Parameters defining the hash functions for the current
    > table and for the non-current table.
    >
    > o When it is time to switch tables, start removing the entries
    > in hash bucket #fvl of the current table. Optionally put them
    > into the non-current table (or just let them be added as they
    > are needed. Only remove a limited number of entries (or,
    > alternatively, stop removing them after a limited amount of
    > time).
    >
    > When the current hash bucket has been completely emptied,
    > increment fvl, and, if we have not already hit the limit,
    > continue on the new hash bucket.
    >
    > When fvl runs off the end of the table, you are done with
    > the switch. Update the pointer to reference the other
    > table. Important -- do -not- start another switch until
    > a grace period has elapsed!!! Otherwise, you will end
    > up fatally confusing slow readers.
    >
    > o When searching, if the hash function gives a value less
    > than fvl, search the non-current table.
    >
    > If the hash function gives a value equal to fvl, search
    > the current table, and, if not found, search the non-current
    > table.
    >
    > If the hash function gives a value greater than fvl, search
    > only the current table. (It may also be necessary to search
    > the non-current table to allow for races with fvl update.)
    >
    > Does this seem reasonable?
    >
    > Thanx, Paul

    Well, if as a bonus we are able to expand the size of the hash table, it could
    be very very good : As of today, the boot time sizing of this hash table is
    somewhat problematic.

    If the size is expanded by a 2 factor (or a power of too), can your proposal
    works ?

    Eric
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-01-30 05:58    [W:0.033 / U:0.452 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site