From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@ixiacom.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@lhnet.ca>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@ixiacom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: allow netdev_wait_allrefs() to run faster
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:49:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091024054943.GA6638@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AE28429.6040608@gmail.com>
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:35:53AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 05:40:07PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> [PATCH] net: allow netdev_wait_allrefs() to run faster
> >>
> >> netdev_wait_allrefs() waits that all references to a device vanishes.
> >>
> >> It currently uses a _very_ pessimistic 250 ms delay between each probe.
> >> Some users report that no more than 4 devices can be dismantled per second,
> >> this is a pretty serious problem for extreme setups.
> >>
> >> Most likely, references only wait for a rcu grace period that should come
> >> fast, so use a schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1) to allow faster recovery.
> >
> > Is this a place where synchronize_rcu_expedited() is appropriate?
> > (It went in to 2.6.32-rc1.)
>
> Thanks for the tip Paul
>
> I believe netdev_wait_allrefs() is not a perfect candidate, because
> synchronize_sched_expedited() seems really expensive.
It does indeed keep the CPUs quite busy for a bit. ;-)
> Maybe we could call it once only, if we had to call 1 times
> the jiffie delay ?
This could be a very useful approach!
However, please keep in mind that although synchronize_rcu_expedited()
forces a grace period, it does nothing to speed the invocation of other
RCU callbacks. In short, synchronize_rcu_expedited() is a faster version
of synchronize_rcu(), but doesn't necessarily help other synchronize_rcu()
or call_rcu() invocations.
The reason I point this out is that it looks to me that the code below is
waiting for some other task which is in turn waiting on a grace period.
But I don't know this code, so could easily be confused.
Thanx, paul
> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index fa88dcd..9b04b9a 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -4970,6 +4970,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_netdev);
> static void netdev_wait_allrefs(struct net_device *dev)
> {
> unsigned long rebroadcast_time, warning_time;
> + unsigned int count = 0;
>
> rebroadcast_time = warning_time = jiffies;
> while (atomic_read(&dev->refcnt) != 0) {
> @@ -4995,7 +4996,10 @@ static void netdev_wait_allrefs(struct net_device *dev)
> rebroadcast_time = jiffies;
> }
>
> - msleep(250);
> + if (count++ == 1)
> + synchronize_rcu_expedited();
> + else
> + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
>
> if (time_after(jiffies, warning_time + 10 * HZ)) {
> printk(KERN_EMERG "unregister_netdevice: "
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-24 5:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-17 22:18 [PATCH/RFC] make unregister_netdev() delete more than 4 interfaces per second Benjamin LaHaise
2009-10-18 4:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-18 16:13 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2009-10-18 17:51 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-18 18:21 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2009-10-18 19:36 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-21 12:39 ` Octavian Purdila
2009-10-21 15:40 ` [PATCH] net: allow netdev_wait_allrefs() to run faster Eric Dumazet
2009-10-21 16:09 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-21 16:51 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2009-10-21 19:54 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-29 23:07 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-10-29 23:38 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2009-10-30 1:45 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-10-30 14:35 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2009-10-30 14:43 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-30 23:25 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-10-30 23:53 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2009-10-31 0:37 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-08-09 17:23 ` Ben Greear
2010-08-09 17:34 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2010-08-09 17:44 ` Ben Greear
2010-08-09 17:48 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2010-08-09 18:03 ` Ben Greear
2010-08-09 19:59 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-08-09 21:03 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2010-08-09 21:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-10-21 16:55 ` Octavian Purdila
2009-10-23 21:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-10-24 4:35 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-24 5:49 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-10-24 8:49 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-24 13:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-10-24 14:24 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-24 14:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-10-24 23:49 ` Octavian Purdila
2009-10-25 4:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-10-25 8:35 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-25 15:19 ` Octavian Purdila
2009-10-25 19:28 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-24 20:22 ` Stephen Hemminger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091024054943.GA6638@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=bcrl@lhnet.ca \
--cc=cratiu@ixiacom.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=opurdila@ixiacom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.