Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20081007.112931.144606424.davem@davemloft.net>
To: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl
Cc: dada1@cosmosbay.com, minyard@acm.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org, shemminger@vyatta.com,
       paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Convert the UDP hash lock to RCU
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <1223368290.26330.10.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <48EA8197.6080502@cosmosbay.com>
	<20081006.144002.56418911.davem@davemloft.net>
	<1223368290.26330.10.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1133
Lines: 29

From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:31:30 +0200

> On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 14:40 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
> > Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:22:31 +0200
> > 
> > > Me wondering what impact this synchronize_rcu() can have on mono-threaded
> > > VOIP applications using lot of UDP sockets. What is the maximum delay of
> > > this function ?
> > 
> > The cost is enormous, we really can't use it here.
> > 
> > I have a patch that did top-level socket destruction using RCU,
> > and that didn't use synchronize_rcu(), and that killed connection
> > rates by up to %20.
> 
> Did you ever figure out why you lost those 20% ?

Probably the RCU delay on a 128 cpu machine :-)

Also I bet batching the socket destruction eliminates all of
the cached local state we have in the cpu at the actual socket
destruction time.
--
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/