Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757475AbZCSBRl (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:17:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753840AbZCSBR1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:17:27 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:43382 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753532AbZCSBR0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:17:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20090318.181713.62394874.davem@davemloft.net> To: sven@thebigcorporation.com Cc: ghaskins@novell.com, vernux@us.ibm.com, andi@firstfloor.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, pmullaney@novell.com Subject: Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1237425191.8204.41.camel@quadrophenia.thebigcorporation.com> References: <49C16D7C.3080003@novell.com> <20090318.180355.228447835.davem@davemloft.net> <1237425191.8204.41.camel@quadrophenia.thebigcorporation.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.1 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1357 Lines: 31 From: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:13:11 -0700 > On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 18:03 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > From: Gregory Haskins > > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:54:04 -0400 > > > > > Note that -rt doesnt typically context-switch under contention anymore > > > since we introduced adaptive-locks. Also note that the contention > > > against the lock is still contention, regardless of whether you have -rt > > > or not. Its just that the slow-path to handle the contended case for > > > -rt is more expensive than mainline. However, once you have the > > > contention as stated, you have already lost. > > > > First, contention is not implicitly a bad thing. > > Its a bad thing when it does not scale. You have only one pipe to shove packets into in this case, and for your workload multiple cpus are going to be trying to stuff a single packet at a time from a single UDP send request. There is no added parallelism you can create for that kind of workload on that kind of hardware. It is one of the issues addressed by multiqueue. -- 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/