[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1463749909.18194.291.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 06:11:49 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: remove busylock
On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 09:29 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> The hole idea behind allowing bulk qdisc dequeue, was to mitigate this,
> by allowing dequeue to do more work, while holding the lock.
>
> You mention HTB. Notice HTB does not take advantage of bulk dequeue.
> Have you tried to enable/allow HTB to bulk dequeue?
>
Well, __QDISC___STATE_RUNNING means exactly that : one cpu is dequeueing
many packets from the qdisc and tx them to the device.
It is generic for any kind of qdisc.
HTB bulk dequeue would have to call ->dequeue() mutiple times. If you do
this while holding qdisc spinlock, you block other cpus from doing
concurrent ->enqueue(), adding latencies (always the same trade off...)
HTB wont be anytime soon have separate protections for the ->enqueue()
and the ->dequeue(). Have you looked at this monster ? I did, many
times...
Note that I am working on a patch to transform __QDISC___STATE_RUNNING
to a seqcount do that we can grab stats without holding the qdisc lock.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists