[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1276678609.2632.13.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:56:49 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] inetpeer: do not use zero refcnt for
freed entries
Le mardi 15 juin 2010 à 21:47 -0700, David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 04:45:24 +0200
>
> > [PATCH net-next-2.6] inetpeer: do not use zero refcnt for freed entries
> >
> > Followup of commit aa1039e73cc2 (inetpeer: RCU conversion)
> >
> > Unused inet_peer entries have a null refcnt.
> >
> > Using atomic_inc_not_zero() in rcu lookups is not going to work for
> > them, and slow path is taken.
> >
> > Fix this using -1 marker instead of 0 for deleted entries.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>
> Applied, thanks Eric.
Thanks
With 65537 peers and a DDOS frag attack, I now get following profiling
results :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PerfTop: 1024 irqs/sec kernel:100.0% exact: 0.0% [1000Hz
cycles], (all, cpu: 0)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
samples pcnt function DSO
_______ _____ _________________________
7722.00 65.6% inet_frag_find
1355.00 11.5% ip4_frag_match
494.00 4.2% __lock_acquire
260.00 2.2% inet_getpeer
243.00 2.1% ip_route_input_common
151.00 1.3% lock_release
142.00 1.2% mark_lock
126.00 1.1% lock_acquire
104.00 0.9% __kmalloc
86.00 0.7% skb_put
Just to show what could be the next steps ;)
--
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