From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -next 2/2] netfilter: store rules per NUMA node instead of per cpu
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 23:52:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150528215223.GG23992@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432849093.7456.32.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 22:51 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > We store rule blob per (possible) cpu. Unfortunately this means we can
> > waste lot of memory on big smp machines. ipt_entry structure ('rule head')
> > is 112 byte, so e.g. with maxcpu=64 one single rule eats close to 8k RAM.
> >
> > Since previous patch moved counters to separate percpu blob, it appears
> > there is nothing left in the rule blob that must be percpu.
> >
> > Thus only duplicate the rule blob for each NUMA node.
> >
> > On my test system (144 possible cpus, one numa node, 400k dummy rules) this
> > change saves close to 9 Gigabyte of RAM.
> >
> > Reported-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
> > Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
> > ---
>
> Really if the program is now readonly, I would keep a single copy in
> memory.
Some matches (limit for instance) store kernel data ptr in their
matchinfo data (from checkentry hook, not per packet match function),
so its not 100% readonly.
> Are we copying kernel text to each NUMA node ? ;)
Beats me. I was under impression that cpu accessing memory on other node
takes access penalty, thats why I changed it to per node allocation.
Is it insignificant in practice?
If so, I can respin it w/o the numa duplication; we can still add it
back later if needed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-28 21:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-28 20:51 [PATCH v2 -next 1/2] netfilter: iptables: separate counters from iptables rules Florian Westphal
2015-05-28 20:51 ` [PATCH v2 -next 2/2] netfilter: store rules per NUMA node instead of per cpu Florian Westphal
2015-05-28 21:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-05-28 21:52 ` Florian Westphal [this message]
2015-05-28 22:04 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-05-29 9:41 ` Florian Westphal
2015-05-28 21:33 ` [PATCH v2 -next 1/2] netfilter: iptables: separate counters from iptables rules Eric Dumazet
2015-05-28 21:45 ` Florian Westphal
2015-05-28 21:54 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-05-29 10:05 ` Florian Westphal
2015-05-29 10:32 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-05-29 11:32 ` Patrick Schaaf
2015-06-05 12:28 ` Florian Westphal
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=20150528215223.GG23992@breakpoint.cc \
--to=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
/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.