[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87prge1rhu.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:54:37 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Vernon Mauery <vernux@...ibm.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock
Vernon Mauery <vernux@...ibm.com> writes:
>
> So while this issue really hits -rt kernels hard, it has a real effect on
> mainline kernels as well. The contention of the spinlocks is amplified
> when they get turned into rt-mutexes, which causes a double context switch.
The new adaptive spin heuristics that have been discussed some time
ago didn't help? Unsurprisingly making locks a lot more expensive
has drawbacks as you discovered.
> &list->lock#3: 24517307 24643791 0.71 1286.62 56516392.42 34834296 44904018 0.60 164.79 31314786.02
> -------------
> &list->lock#3 15596927 [<ffffffff812474da>] dev_queue_xmit+0x2ea/0x468
The real "fix" would be probably to use a multi queue capable NIC
and a NIC driver that sets up multiple queues for TX (normally they
only do for RX). Then cores or a set of cores (often the number
of cores is larger than the number of NIC queues) could avoid this
problem. Disadvantage: more memory use.
But then again I'm not sure it's worth it if the problem only
happens in out of tree RT.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists