From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: rib_trie / Fix inflate_threshold_root. Now=15 size=11 bits Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:37:27 +0000 Message-ID: <20090626093727.GA6832@ff.dom.local> References: <4A43E9F1.90209@cosmosbay.com> <20090626080302.GB5204@ff.dom.local> <19012.37515.146191.198843@robur.slu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Dumazet , =?us-ascii?B?PT9JU08tODg1OS0yP1E/UGF3ZT1CM19TdGFzemV3c2tpPz0=?= , Robert Olsson , Linux Network Development list To: Robert Olsson Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com ([209.85.220.213]:42404 "EHLO mail-fx0-f213.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752306AbZFZJha (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:37:30 -0400 Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so1979181fxm.37 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19012.37515.146191.198843@robur.slu.se> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:19:07AM +0200, Robert Olsson wrote: > > Jarek Poplawski writes: > > > >> oprofile: using NMI interrupt. > > >> Fix inflate_threshold_root. Now=15 size=11 bits > > >> Fix inflate_threshold_root. Now=15 size=11 bits > > >> Fix inflate_threshold_root. Now=15 size=11 bits > > >> Fix inflate_threshold_root. Now=15 size=11 bits > > >> Fix inflate_threshold_root. Now=15 size=11 bits > > >> Fix inflate_threshold_root. Now=15 size=11 bits > > > On the other hand, even if there is no problem with memory, it seems > > because of hitting max_resize the threshold should be changed, e.g. > > by reverting the patch below. > > You seem to have some temporary memory problem. So the printout might be > a bit misleading in this case. We really like to keep the root node as big > as we can to keep the tree as flat as possible for performance reasons. > (We're even more motivated now when we can disable the route cache) > > So I'll guess the next insert/delete inflates the root node to be within > the interval. So I'll assume this just a temporary failure? > > I would be nice to have *threshholds* settable by /proc or /sys. I would > use this in the other direction to trade memory for even faster lookups. > > But maybe experts memory allocation has some good suggestions. > Pawel has reported these problems for a long time: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6648 So, until it's fully investigated, it seems some 'fast' fix is needed here. Cheers, Jarek P.