From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Kirby Subject: Re: Route cache performance Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:01:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20050824000158.GA8137@netnation.com> References: <20050815213855.GA17832@netnation.com> <43014E27.1070104@cosmosbay.com> <20050823190852.GA20794@netnation.com> <17163.32645.202453.145416@robur.slu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Dumazet , netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Robert Olsson Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17163.32645.202453.145416@robur.slu.se> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:56:53PM +0200, Robert Olsson wrote: > Yes your GC does not work at all in your 2.6 setups...Why? Good question. :) > echo 50 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/gc_min_interval_ms The output looks exactly the same with gc_min_interval_ms set to 50. If I set it to 0, it does change a little but _still_ overflows: rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache| entries| in_hit|in_slow_|gc_total|gc_ignor|gc_goal_|gc_dst_o|in_hlist| | | tot| | ed| miss| verflow| _search| 3| 3| 1| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0| 4| 11| 5| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 5| 5| 2| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 23615| 1| 24002| 15812| 0| 0| 0| 11470| 68692| 0| 46780| 46777| 0| 4687| 0| 4492| 86046| 0| 18763| 18754| 0| 18754| 0| 119| 94884| 0| 9540| 9538| 0| 9538| 0| 47| 104901| 0| 10819| 10817| 0| 10817| 0| 61| 114919| 0| 10817| 10818| 0| 10818| 0| 68| 127424| 0| 13512| 13505| 0| 13505| 0| 74| 131062| 0| 15113| 15106| 0| 15106| 10368| 28| 131062| 0| 12503| 12482| 0| 12482| 11582| 9| 131062| 0| 8146| 8130| 0| 8130| 7530| 5| 131062| 0| 8204| 8194| 0| 8194| 7594| 2| 131062| 0| 8132| 8131| 0| 8131| 7531| 5| 131062| 0| 8196| 8195| 0| 8195| 7595| 4| 131062| 0| 8130| 8129| 0| 8129| 7529| 8| Something is definitely broken here. Are the interrupts (or in this case, NAPI) able to starve the gc somehow? Simon-