Date:   Fri, 2 Dec 2016 15:52:08 +0000
From:   "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
To:     Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
CC:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net] fib_trie: Avoid expensive update of suffix length
 when not required

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Shearman [mailto:rshearma@...cade.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 5:54 AM
> To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>; Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>;
> Duyck, Alexander H <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net] fib_trie: Avoid expensive update of suffix length when
> not required
> 
> On 01/12/16 18:29, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Robert Shearman
> <rshearma@...cade.com> wrote:
> >> On 29/11/16 23:14, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Robert Shearman
> >>> <rshearma@...cade.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 5405afd1a306 ("fib_trie: Add tracking value for suffix
> >>>> length")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So I am not entirely convinced this is a regression, I was wondering
> >>> what your numbers looked like before the patch you are saying this
> >>> fixes?  I recall I fixed a number of issues leading up to this so I
> >>> am just curious.
> >>
> >>
> >> At commit 21d1f11db0e2f20a549ad8322879507850544670 ("fib_trie:
> Remove
> >> checks for index >= tnode_child_length from tnode_get_child") which
> >> is the parent of 5405afd1a306:
> >>
> >> $ time sudo ip route restore < ~/allroutes RTNETLINK answers: File
> >> exists RTNETLINK answers: File exists RTNETLINK answers: File exists
> >> RTNETLINK answers: File exists
> >>
> >> real    0m3.451s
> >> user    0m0.184s
> >> sys     0m2.004s
> >>
> >>
> >> At commit 5405afd1a30620de8601436bae739c67c0bc7324 ("fib_trie: Add
> >> tracking value for suffix length"):
> >>
> >> $ time sudo ip route restore < ~/allroutes RTNETLINK answers: File
> >> exists RTNETLINK answers: File exists RTNETLINK answers: File exists
> >> RTNETLINK answers: File exists
> >>
> >> real    0m48.624s
> >> user    0m0.360s
> >> sys     0m46.960s
> >>
> >> So does that warrant a fixes tag for this patch?
> >
> > Yes, please include it in the patch description next time.
> >
> > I've been giving it thought and the fact is the patch series has
> > merit.  I just think it was being a bit too aggressive in terms of
> > some of the changes.  So placing any changes in put_child seem to be
> > the one piece in this that make this a bit ugly.
> 
> Does that imply the current updating of the parent's slen value should be
> removed from put_child then?

No, that is where it should be.  We want to leave the put_child code as is.  That way all the code for halving and inflating nodes works correctly.

The only reason for having the update_suffix code update the parent was because before it was propagating the suffix length for increases as well.  Since we aren't using it for that anymore there isn't much point in having update_suffix touching the parent in the code below.
 
> I started out without doing the changes in put_child, but that meant the changes
> to push the slen up through the trie were spread all over the place. This seemed
> like the cleaner solution.

It actually makes it much messier.  The put_child call is used all over the place in many situations where it doesn't make sense to go through updating the entire trie.  The big issue is you can't walk up the trie if you are working on assembling a node off on the side that you plan to insert into the trie later.  The only places we need to worry about updating the suffix are when we have added a new leaf/suffix, or when we have deleted a leaf/suffix.  That is why in the patches I submitted I only update in those two places.

> >>>> +       }
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>>  /* Add a child at position i overwriting the old value.
> >>>>   * Update the value of full_children and empty_children.
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * The suffix length of the parent node and the rest of the tree
> >>>> + is
> >>>> + * updated (if required) when adding/replacing a node, but is
> >>>> + caller's
> >>>> + * responsibility on removal.
> >>>>   */
> >>>>  static void put_child(struct key_vector *tn, unsigned long i,
> >>>>                       struct key_vector *n) @@ -447,8 +461,8 @@
> >>>> static void put_child(struct key_vector *tn, unsigned long i,
> >>>>         else if (!wasfull && isfull)
> >>>>                 tn_info(tn)->full_children++;
> >>>>
> >>>> -       if (n && (tn->slen < n->slen))
> >>>> -               tn->slen = n->slen;
> >>>> +       if (n)
> >>>> +               node_push_suffix(tn, n);
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This is just creating redundant work if we have to perform a resize.
> >>
> >>
> >> The only real redundant work is the assignment of slen in tn, since
> >> the propagation up the trie has to happen regardless and if a
> >> subsequent resize results in changes to the trie then the propagation
> >> will stop at tn's parent since the suffix length of the tn's parent
> >> will not be less than tn's suffix length.
> >
> >
> > This isn't going to work.  We want to avoid trying to push the suffix
> > when we place a child.  There are scenarios where we are placing
> > children in nodes that don't have parents yet because we are doing
> > rebalances and such.  I suspect this could be pretty expensive on a
> > resize call.
> 
> It's not expensive because the new parents that are being built up are orphaned
> from the rest of the trie, so the push up won't proceed into the rest of the trie
> until the new node is inserted into the trie.

That isn't entirely true.  For example every time you have to add a new leaf where one already exists we create a new tnode, add the original leaf, and then add the new one.  I would rather not have this code trying to walk the trie twice.  It would make more sense just to update things only when we add the new one.

> > We want to pull the suffix pushing out of the resize completely.  The
> > problem is this is going to cause us to start pushing suffixes for
> > every node moved as a part of resize.
> 
> This will mean that nodes will have to be visited multiple times, which could well
> be more expensive than doing it during the resize.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here.  Basically when we add a node we will start walking up the list just like you do with the changes you made to put_child.  The only difference is that I only have us doing it when we insert a new leaf or when we insert a new fib alias to the tail of the list.  It should be less expensive than the approach you took as I don't try walking up any lists unless there is actually something to pull on an add.

Basically the only real difference between what I am suggesting and what you have submitted was the fact that I would prefer to see put_child left as is and instead for us to just add a call to node_push_suffix in fib_insert_node.  Doing it that way is much cleaner in my opinion. 

> >
> >>>
> >>>>         rcu_assign_pointer(tn->tnode[i], n);  }
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>> -static void leaf_pull_suffix(struct key_vector *tp, struct
> >>>> key_vector
> >>>> *l)
> >>>> +static void node_set_suffix(struct key_vector *tp, unsigned char
> >>>> +slen)
> >>>>  {
> >>>> -       while ((tp->slen > tp->pos) && (tp->slen > l->slen)) {
> >>>> -               if (update_suffix(tp) > l->slen)
> >>>> +       if (slen > tp->slen)
> >>>> +               tp->slen = slen;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static void node_pull_suffix(struct key_vector *tn) {
> >>>> +       struct key_vector *tp;
> >>>> +       unsigned char slen;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +       slen = update_suffix(tn);
> >>>> +       tp = node_parent(tn);
> >>>> +       while ((tp->slen > tp->pos) && (tp->slen > slen)) {
> >>>> +               if (update_suffix(tp) > slen)
> >>>>                         break;
> >>>>                 tp = node_parent(tp);
> >>>>         }
> >>>>  }
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> > Actually I realized that there is a bug here.  The check for
> > update_suffix(tp) > slen can cause us to stop prematurely if I am not
> > mistaken.  What we should probably be doing is pulling out tp->slen
> > and if the result of update_suffix is the same value then we can break
> > the loop.  Otherwise we can stop early if a "second runner up" shows
> > up that is supposed to be pushed up the trie.
> 
> Excellent point. This also a problem in the existing code when removing a fib
> alias with other aliases still on the leaf. I'll send a separate patch for this and
> base my changes on top of it.
> 
> > I actually started around with patches to do much the same as what you
> > are doing and I will probably submit them as an RFC so if you need you
> > can pick pieces out as needed, or I could submit them if they work for
> > you.
> 
> I'd be happy to test out any patches you send me.

I sent them out yesterday.  If you could get me the timing on those patches I would appreciate it.  I'm suspecting we should be getting close to your original time required to plug in 200K routes.

> >>> I really hate all the renaming.  Can't you just leave these as
> >>> leaf_pull_suffix and leaf_push _suffix.  I'm fine with us dropping
> >>> the leaf of the suffix but the renaming just makes adds a bunch of noise.
> >>> Really it might work better if you broke the replacement of the
> >>> key_vector as a leaf with the suffix length into a separate patch,
> >>> then you could do the rename as a part of that.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ok, I'll leave the naming of leaf_push_suffix alone. Note that
> >> leaf_pull_suffix hasn't been renamed, the below in the diff is just
> >> an artifact of how diff decided to present the changes along with the
> >> moving of leaf_push_suffix.
> >
> > So I have been looking this over for the last couple days and actually
> > I have started to be okay with the renaming.
> >
> > However I would ask to be consistent.  If you are going to have
> > node_pull_suffix and node_push_suffix then just pass a node and a
> > suffix length.  You can drop the leaf key vector from both functions
> > instead of just one.
> 
> Ok, I can do that.
> 
> >
> >>>
> >>>> -static void leaf_push_suffix(struct key_vector *tn, struct
> >>>> key_vector
> >>>> *l)
> >>>> +static void leaf_pull_suffix(struct key_vector *tp, struct
> >>>> +key_vector
> >>>> *l)
> >>>>  {
> >>>> -       /* if this is a new leaf then tn will be NULL and we can sort
> >>>> -        * out parent suffix lengths as a part of trie_rebalance
> >>>> -        */
> >>>> -       while (tn->slen < l->slen) {
> >>>> -               tn->slen = l->slen;
> >>>> -               tn = node_parent(tn);
> >>>> +       while ((tp->slen > tp->pos) && (tp->slen > l->slen)) {
> >>>> +               if (update_suffix(tp) > l->slen)
> >>>> +                       break;
> >>>> +               tp = node_parent(tp);
> >>>>         }
> >>>>  }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If possible it would work better if you could avoid moving functions
> >>> around as a result of your changes.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ok, I can add a forward declaration instead.
> >
> > It shouldn't be necessary.  I think you are doing way too much with
> > this patch.  We just need this to be a fix, you are doing a bit too
> > much like adding this new node_set_suffix function which isn't really
> > needed.
> 
> As per your comment below the node_set_suffix function isn't necessary.
> However, I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting with this patch doing too
> much. Are you saying that you'd like to see a series of patches starting with
> some of the restructuring/renaming of the push/pull functions, or are you saying
> that the sum total is too much?

Basically what it all came down to is the patch itself is a bit noisy and hard to follow.  That is why I broke this down into two patches when I submitted it back out with what I consider to be fixes.

> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -1783,6 +1801,16 @@ void fib_table_flush_external(struct
> >>>> fib_table
> >>>> *tb)
> >>>>                         if (IS_TRIE(pn))
> >>>>                                 break;
> >>>>
> >>>> +                       /* push the suffix length to the parent node,
> >>>> +                        * since a previous leaf removal may have
> >>>> +                        * caused it to change
> >>>> +                        */
> >>>> +                       if (pn->slen > pn->pos) {
> >>>> +                               unsigned char slen =
> >>>> + update_suffix(pn);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +                               node_set_suffix(node_parent(pn), slen);
> >>>> +                       }
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Why bother with the local variable?  You could just pass
> >>> update_suffix(pn) as the parameter to your node_set_suffix function.
> >>
> >>
> >> To avoid a long line on the node_set_suffix call or splitting it
> >> across lines, but I'll remove the local variable as you suggest and the same
> below.
> >
> > Actually I think there is a bug here.  You shouldn't be setting the
> > suffix for the parent based on the child.  You can just call
> > update_suffix(pn) and that should be enough.
> 
> Yes, you're right. BTW, this logic is transferred from the existing resize function
> and I think what saves us both before and after my changes is that the logic is
> repeated for the parent node which fixes the value and so on all the way up the
> trie.

Right, but the logic was changed so the bug wasn't really introduced until we stopped using update_suffix to push the suffix length up the trie.

Odds are the call to node_set_suffix always did nothing anyway since the parent should have always had an equal or greater suffix than the child.

- Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists