Re: Problem wit route cache

[Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>]

Le lundi 08 février 2010 à 15:16 +0100, Paweł Staszewski a écrit :

> >    
> Some day ago after info about route cache i was have  also this info:

> Code: fe 79 4c 00 48 85 db 74 14 48 8b 74 24 10 48 89 ef ff 13 48 83 c3 08 48
> 83 3b 00 eb ea 48 83 c4 18 5b 5d 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 41 5f<c3>  55 48 89 f5 53 48
> 89 fb 48 83 ec 08 48 8b 76 18 48 2b 75 10
> Call Trace:
>   <IRQ>   [<ffffffff8126826f>] ? e1000_put_txbuf+0x62/0x74
>   [<ffffffff8126834a>] ? e1000_clean_tx_irq+0xc9/0x235
>   [<ffffffff8126b71b>] ? e1000_clean+0x5c/0x21c
>   [<ffffffff812f29a3>] ? net_rx_action+0x71/0x15d
>   [<ffffffff81035311>] ? __do_softirq+0xd7/0x196
>   [<ffffffff81002dac>] ? call_softirq+0x1c/0x28
>   [<ffffffff812f768f>] ? dst_gc_task+0x0/0x1a7
>   [<ffffffff81002dac>] ? call_softirq+0x1c/0x28
>   <EOI>   [<ffffffff81004599>] ? do_softirq+0x31/0x63
>   [<ffffffff81034ec1>] ? local_bh_enable_ip+0x75/0x86
>   [<ffffffff812f768f>] ? dst_gc_task+0x0/0x1a7
>   [<ffffffff812f775d>] ? dst_gc_task+0xce/0x1a7
>   [<ffffffff8136b08c>] ? schedule+0x82c/0x906
>   [<ffffffff8103c44f>] ? lock_timer_base+0x26/0x4b
>   [<ffffffff810a41d6>] ? cache_reap+0x0/0x11d
>   [<ffffffff81044c38>] ? worker_thread+0x14c/0x1dc
>   [<ffffffff81047dcd>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2e
>   [<ffffffff81044aec>] ? worker_thread+0x0/0x1dc
>   [<ffffffff810479bd>] ? kthread+0x79/0x81
>   [<ffffffff81002cb4>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
>   [<ffffffff81047944>] ? kthread+0x0/0x81
> 
> 
>   [<ffffffff81002cb0>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10
> 
> 

This trace is indeed very interesting, since dst_gc_task() is run from a
work queue, and there is no scheduling point in it.

We might need add a scheduling point in dst_gc_task() in case huge
number of entries were flushed.