Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 16:07:29 +0200
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Cc: Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@amorsen.dk>,
       David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, minyard@acm.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
       paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Convert the UDP hash lock to RCU
Message-ID: <20081007160729.60c076c4@speedy>
In-Reply-To: <48EB5D28.7000503@cosmosbay.com>
References: <20081006185026.GA10383@minyard.local>
	<48EA8197.6080502@cosmosbay.com>
	<20081006.144002.56418911.davem@davemloft.net>
	<48EAF29D.8050203@cosmosbay.com>
	<m37i8k3hv1.fsf@ursa.amorsen.dk>
	<48EB5D28.7000503@cosmosbay.com>
Organization: Vyatta
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2311
Lines: 55

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:59:20 +0200
Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:

> Benny Amorsen a écrit :
> > Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> writes:
> > 
> >> Most UDP sockets are setup for long periods (RTP trafic), or if an application really
> >> wants to {open/send or receive one UDP frame/close} many sockets, it already hits
> >> RCU handling of its file structures and should not be slowed down that much.
> >>
> 
> I should have say 'Many' instead of 'Most' :)
> 
> >> By 'long period' I mean thousand of packets sent/received by each RTP session, being
> >> voice (50 packets/second) or even worse video...
> > 
> > Does DNS with port randomization need short lived sockets?
> > 
> 
> Yes very true, but current allocation of a random port can be very expensive, 
> since we scan all the UDP hash table to select the smaller hash chain.
> 
> We stop the scan if we find an empty slot, but on machines with say more than 200
> bound UDP sockets, they are probably no empty slots. (UDP_HTABLE_SIZE is 128)
> 
> bind(NULL port) algo is then O(N), N being number of bound UDP sockets.
> 
> So heavy DNS servers/proxies probably use a pool/range of pre-allocated sockets
> to avoid costs of allocating/freeing them ? If they dont care about that cost,
> the extra call_rcu() will be unnoticed.
> 
> For pathological (yet very common :) ) cases like single DNS query/answer, RCU
> would mean :
> 
> Pros :
> - one few rwlock hit when receiving the answer (if any)
> Cons :
> - one call_rcu() to delay socket freeing/reuse after RCU period.
> 
> So it might be a litle bit more expensive than without RCU
> 
> I agree I am more interested in optimizing UDP stack for heavy users like RTP 
> servers/proxies handling xxx.000 packets/second than DNS users/servers.
> Shame on me :)
> 
> (2 weeks ago, Corey mentioned a 10x increase on UDP throughput on a 16-way machine,
> that sounds promising)

The idea of keeping chains short is the problem. That code should just be pulled because
it doesn't help that much, and also creates bias on the port randomization.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/