[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180907033257.2nlgiqm2t4jiwhzc@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 11:32:57 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-decnet-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/sock: move memory_allocated over to percpu_counter
variables
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 12:33:58PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:21 PM Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
> >
> > Today these are all global shared variables per protocol, and in
> > particular tcp_memory_allocated can get hot on a system with
> > large number of CPUs and a substantial number of connections.
> >
> > Moving it over to a per-cpu variable makes it significantly cheaper,
> > and the added overhead when summing up the percpu copies is still smaller
> > than the cost of having a hot cacheline bouncing around.
>
> I am curious. We never noticed contention on this variable, at least for TCP.
Yes these variables are heavily amortised so I'm surprised that
they would cause much contention.
> Please share some numbers with us.
Indeed.
Thanks,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists