Re: [PATCH] net: Convert TCP/DCCP listening hash tables to use RCU

[Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>]

Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:42:14PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
>>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:33:28AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>> Hi David
>>>>
>>>> Please find patch to convert TCP/DCCP listening hash tables
>>>> to RCU.
>>>>
>>>> A followup patch will cleanup all sk_node fields and macros
>>>> that are not used anymore.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> [PATCH] net: Convert TCP/DCCP listening hash tables to use RCU
>>>>
>>>> This is the last step to be able to perform full RCU lookups
>>>> in __inet_lookup() : After established/timewait tables, we
>>>> add RCU lookups to listening hash table.
>>>>
>>>> The only trick here is that a socket of a given type (TCP ipv4,
>>>> TCP ipv6, ...) can now flight between two different tables
>>>> (established and listening) during a RCU grace period, so we
>>>> must use different 'nulls' end-of-chain values for two tables.
>>>>
>>>> We define a large value :
>>>>
>>>> #define LISTENING_NULLS_BASE (1U << 29)
>>> I do like this use of the full set up upper bits!  However, wouldn't it
>>> be a good idea to use a larger base value for 64-bit systems, perhaps
>>> using CONFIG_64BIT to choose?  500M entries might not seem like that
>>> many in a few years time...
>> Well, this value is correct up to 2^29 slots, and a hash table of 2^32 
>> bytes
>> (8 bytes per pointer)
>>
>> A TCP socket uses about 1472 bytes on 64bit arches, so 2^29 sessions
>> would need 800 GB of ram, not counting dentries, inodes, ...
>>
>> I really doubt a machine, even with 4096 cpus should/can handle so many
>> tcp sessions :)
> 
> 200MB per CPU, right?
> 
> But yes, now that you mention it, 800GB of memory dedicated to TCP
> connections sounds almost as ridiculous as did 640K of memory in the
> late 1970s.  ;-)

;)

> 
> Nevertheless, I don't have an overwhelming objection to the current
> code.  Easy enough to change should it become a problem, right?

Sure. By that time, cpus might be 128 bits or 256 bits anyway :)