[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49C16294.8050101@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:07:32 -0700
From: Vernon Mauery <vernux@...ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
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
Andi Kleen wrote:
> 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.
Yes. Well, while the adaptive spinlocks did great things for the
network throughput last time I tested them, they also didn't quite
give the determinism in other areas. It would be nice to be able to
target a handful of trouble locks with adaptive spinlocks.
Even so, though I saw dramatic throughput increases with adaptive
spinlocks, they would still be bound by this same lock contention
that I am seeing when the locks are true spinlocks.
>> &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.
Hmmm. So do either the netxen_nic or bnx2x drivers support multiple
queues? (that is the HW that I have access to right now). And do I
need to do anything to set them up?
> But then again I'm not sure it's worth it if the problem only
> happens in out of tree RT.
The effects of the high contention are not quite so pronounced in the
vanilla kernel, but I think we are still limited by this lock. In the
-rt kernel, it is obvious that the lock contention is causing lots of
trouble.
--Vernon
--
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