[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160306170641.GA8820@uranus.lan>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 20:06:41 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
solar@...nwall.com, vvs@...tuozzo.com, avagin@...tuozzo.com,
xemul@...tuozzo.com, vdavydov@...tuozzo.com, khorenko@...tuozzo.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: ipv4 -- Introduce ifa limit per net
On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 08:23:12AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On dim., 2016-03-06 at 13:09 +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> > Anyway, then I run this script for 255 as parameter
> > in one pass which gen. requests to create 65025 addresses
> > and kernel start complaining:
> >
> > Perf output
> > -----------
> > 24.95% [kernel] [k] __local_bh_enable_ip
> > 21.52% [kernel] [k] lock_acquire
> > 15.54% [kernel] [k] lock_release
> > 9.84% [kernel] [k] lock_is_held
> > 7.47% [kernel] [k] lock_acquired
> > 4.08% [kernel] [k] __local_bh_disable_ip
>
> Well, this looks like LOCKDEP kernel. Are you really running LOCKDEP on
> production kernels ?
This is vanilla kernel with most of debug features turned on,
not our production one. IIRC in production we don't use
lockdep. I can run tests with lockdep turned off. Still
I think I have to run tests on real hardware instead of
VM to provide you back some sane numbers, and once we
get back from holidays (which will be at Wednesday) I
gonna build the vanilla and run it on real machine
with both David's patches and measure the latency.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists