[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080109070318.GA8581@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 08:03:18 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: andi@...stfloor.org, jheffner@....edu, ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi,
lachlan.andrew@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
quetchen@...tech.edu
Subject: Re: SACK scoreboard
> It adds severe spikes in CPU utilization that are even moderate
> line rates begins to affect RTTs.
>
> Or do you think it's OK to process 500,000 SKBs while locked
> in a software interrupt.
You can always push it into a work queue. Even put it to
other cores if you want.
In fact this is already done partly for the ->completion_queue.
Wouldn't be a big change to queue it another level down.
Also even freeing a lot of objects doesn't have to be
that expensive. I suspect the most cost is in taking
the slab locks, but that could be batched. Without
that the kmem_free fast path isn't particularly
expensive, as long as the headers are still in cache.
Long ago I had sk_buff optimized for the routing case so that freeing
can be all done with a single cache line. That is
long gone, but could be probably restored.
But asking for protocol changes just to work around such a
internal implementation detail is ... <I miss words>
> Perhaps you have another broken awk script to prove this :-)
Your hand waved numbers on inline sizes there were definitely worse
than mine.
-Andi
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists