lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:59:00 +0200
From:	Paweł Staszewski <pstaszewski@...are.pl>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Linux Network Development list <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: weird problem

Today i make other tests with change of 
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/rt_cache_rebuild_count and kernel 2.6.30.1

And when rt_cache_rebuild_count is set to "-1" i have always load on 
x86_64 machine approx 40-50% of each cpu where network card is binded by 
irq_aff

when rt_cache_rebuild_count is set to more than "-1" i have 15 to 20 sec 
of 1 to 3% cpu and after 40-50% cpu

I attach some oprofile output for
rt_cache_rebuild_count = 4 - oprofile_rt_cache_rebuild_count_4.txt
and
rt_cache_rebuild_count = -1 - oprofile_rt_cache_rebuild_count_-1.txt


Regards
Pawel Staszewski

Paweł Staszewski pisze:
> Jarek Poplawski pisze:
>> Pawel Staszewski wrote, On 06/30/2009 10:36 AM:
>> ...
>>  
>>>>>>> rt_worker_func() taking 13% of cpu0 is an alarm for me :)
>>>>>>> And 21% of cpu0 and 34% of cpu6 taken by oprofiled seems odd too...
>>>>>>>             
>>
>> Pawel, here is a patch which changes this function (or what it calls)
>> back to 2.6.28 version; I'm not sure it's OK, so try it very
>> cautiously...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jarek P.
>> --- (for debugging only; apply to 2.6.29.5 or .6)
>>
>>   
> I added this patch 30min ago - all is working but problem still exist.
>
> There is only one change - without this patch cpu load was rising from 
> 40 to 50%
> With this patch there is 15 to 25% cpu load.
>
>
>> diff -Nurp a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
>> --- a/net/ipv4/route.c    2009-07-08 23:42:15.000000000 +0200
>> +++ b/net/ipv4/route.c    2009-07-08 22:47:52.000000000 +0200
>> @@ -769,24 +769,11 @@ static void rt_do_flush(int process_cont
>>      }
>>  }
>>  
>> -/*
>> - * While freeing expired entries, we compute average chain length
>> - * and standard deviation, using fixed-point arithmetic.
>> - * This to have an estimation of rt_chain_length_max
>> - *  rt_chain_length_max = max(elasticity, AVG + 4*SD)
>> - * We use 3 bits for frational part, and 29 (or 61) for magnitude.
>> - */
>> -
>> -#define FRACT_BITS 3
>> -#define ONE (1UL << FRACT_BITS)
>> -
>>  static void rt_check_expire(void)
>>  {
>>      static unsigned int rover;
>>      unsigned int i = rover, goal;
>> -    struct rtable *rth, *aux, **rthp;
>> -    unsigned long samples = 0;
>> -    unsigned long sum = 0, sum2 = 0;
>> +    struct rtable *rth, **rthp;
>>      u64 mult;
>>  
>>      mult = ((u64)ip_rt_gc_interval) << rt_hash_log;
>> @@ -797,7 +784,6 @@ static void rt_check_expire(void)
>>          goal = rt_hash_mask + 1;
>>      for (; goal > 0; goal--) {
>>          unsigned long tmo = ip_rt_gc_timeout;
>> -        unsigned long length;
>>  
>>          i = (i + 1) & rt_hash_mask;
>>          rthp = &rt_hash_table[i].chain;
>> @@ -805,14 +791,10 @@ static void rt_check_expire(void)
>>          if (need_resched())
>>              cond_resched();
>>  
>> -        samples++;
>> -
>>          if (*rthp == NULL)
>>              continue;
>> -        length = 0;
>>          spin_lock_bh(rt_hash_lock_addr(i));
>>          while ((rth = *rthp) != NULL) {
>> -            prefetch(rth->u.dst.rt_next);
>>              if (rt_is_expired(rth)) {
>>                  *rthp = rth->u.dst.rt_next;
>>                  rt_free(rth);
>> @@ -821,46 +803,23 @@ static void rt_check_expire(void)
>>              if (rth->u.dst.expires) {
>>                  /* Entry is expired even if it is in use */
>>                  if (time_before_eq(jiffies, rth->u.dst.expires)) {
>> -nofree:
>>                      tmo >>= 1;
>>                      rthp = &rth->u.dst.rt_next;
>> -                    /*
>> -                     * We only count entries on
>> -                     * a chain with equal hash inputs once
>> -                     * so that entries for different QOS
>> -                     * levels, and other non-hash input
>> -                     * attributes don't unfairly skew
>> -                     * the length computation
>> -                     */
>> -                    for (aux = rt_hash_table[i].chain;;) {
>> -                        if (aux == rth) {
>> -                            length += ONE;
>> -                            break;
>> -                        }
>> -                        if (compare_hash_inputs(&aux->fl, &rth->fl))
>> -                            break;
>> -                        aux = aux->u.dst.rt_next;
>> -                    }
>>                      continue;
>>                  }
>> -            } else if (!rt_may_expire(rth, tmo, ip_rt_gc_timeout))
>> -                goto nofree;
>> +            } else if (!rt_may_expire(rth, tmo, ip_rt_gc_timeout)) {
>> +                tmo >>= 1;
>> +                rthp = &rth->u.dst.rt_next;
>> +                continue;
>> +            }
>>  
>>              /* Cleanup aged off entries. */
>>              *rthp = rth->u.dst.rt_next;
>>              rt_free(rth);
>>          }
>>          spin_unlock_bh(rt_hash_lock_addr(i));
>> -        sum += length;
>> -        sum2 += length*length;
>> -    }
>> -    if (samples) {
>> -        unsigned long avg = sum / samples;
>> -        unsigned long sd = int_sqrt(sum2 / samples - avg*avg);
>> -        rt_chain_length_max = max_t(unsigned long,
>> -                    ip_rt_gc_elasticity,
>> -                    (avg + 4*sd) >> FRACT_BITS);
>>      }
>> +    rt_chain_length_max = ip_rt_gc_elasticity;
>>      rover = i;
>>  }
>>  
>>
>>
>>   
>
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>


View attachment "oprofile_rt_cache_rebuild_count_4.txt" of type "text/plain" (5411 bytes)

View attachment "oprofile_rt_cache_rebuild_count_-1.txt" of type "text/plain" (5414 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ