[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:0.088 / U:4.128 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site