[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y6z9h33h.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:42:42 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Could we avoid touching dst->refcount in some cases ?
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> writes:
> tbench has hard time incrementing decrementing the route cache refcount
> shared by all communications on localhost.
iirc there was a patch some time ago to use per CPU loopback devices to
avoid this, but it was considered too much a benchmark hack.
As core counts increase it might stop being that though.
>
> On real world, we also have this problem on RTP servers sending many UDP
> frames to mediagateways, especially big ones handling thousand of streams.
>
> Given that route entries are using RCU, we probably can avoid incrementing
> their refcount in case of connected sockets ?
Normally they can be hold over sleeps or queuing of skbs too, and RCU
doesn't handle that. To make it handle that you would need to define a
custom RCU period designed for this case, but this would be probably
tricky and fragile: especially I'm not sure even if you had a "any
packet queued" RCU method it be guaranteed to always finish
because there is no fixed upper livetime of a packet.
The other issue is that on preemptible kernels you would need to
disable preemption all the time such a routing entry is hold, which
could be potentially quite long.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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