From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 15:11:48 +1000
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >> The below patch changes rt_run_flush() to only take each spinlock
> >> protecting the rt_hash_table once instead of taking a spinlock for
> >> every hash table bucket (and ending up taking the same small set
> >> of locks over and over).
>
> ...
>
> > I'm not ignoring it I'm just trying to brainstorm whether there
> > is a better way to resolve this inefficiency. :-)
>
> The main problem I see with this is having to walk and free each
> chain with the lock held. We could avoid this if we had a pointer
> in struct rtable to chain them up for freeing later.
>
> I just checked and struct rtable is 236 bytes long on 32-bit but
> the slab cache pads it to 256 bytes so we've got some free space.
> I suspect 64-bit should be similar.
SLUB I believe packs more aggressively and won't pad things out like
that. Therefore adding a member to rtable is much less attractive.
I've been considering various alternative ways to deal with this.
For 2.6.22 and -stable's sake we could allocate an array of pointers
of size N where N is the number of rtable hash slots per spinlock.
A big lock wraps around rt_run_flush() to protect these slots, and
then the loop is:
grap_lock();
for_each_hash_chain_for_lock(i) {
rth = rt_hash_table[i].chain;
if (rth) {
rt_hash_table[i].chain = NULL;
flush_chain[i % N] = rt;
}
}
drop_lock();
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
struct rtable *rth = flush_chain[i];
flush_chain[i] = NULL;
while (rth) {
struct rtable *next = rth->u.dst.rt_next;
rt_free(rth);
rth = next;
}
}
Holding a lock across the entire hash plucking has it's not nice
properties, but it's better than taking the same lock N times in
a row.
In the longer term, if I resurrect my dynamically sized rtable hash
patches (which I do intend to do), that code protected a lot of this
stuff with a seqlock and it might be possible to use that seqlock
solely to flush the lists in rt_run_flush().
Any better ideas?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
