[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1

* Lee Revell <> wrote:

> On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 20:52 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> No problem, I'm not a networking expert...
> Ingo's response to these traces was that softirq preemption, which
> simply offloads all softirq processing to softirqd and has been tested
> in the -rt patchset for over a year, is the easiest solution. Any
> thoughts on that? Personally, I'd rather fix the very few problematic
> softirqs, than take such a drastic step - this softirq appears to be
> one of the last obstacles to being able to meet a 1ms soft RT
> constraint with the mainline kernel.

well, softirq preemption is not really a drastic step - its biggest
problem is that it cannot be included in v2.6.16 ;-) But i agree that if
a solution can be found to break up a latency path, that is preferred.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-29 08:54    [W:0.153 / U:2.288 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site