From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6] Re: rib_trie / Fix inflate_threshold_root. Now=15 size=11 bits Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:00:11 +0000 Message-ID: <20090702060011.GB4954@ff.dom.local> References: <20090630204141.GB3026@ami.dom.local> <4A4AA03D.5090808@itcare.pl> <20090701063651.GA4876@ff.dom.local> <20090701072409.GA12592@ff.dom.local> <4A4B2FA8.3040007@itcare.pl> <20090701101333.GB12715@ff.dom.local> <20090701110407.GC12715@ff.dom.local> <4A4BE06F.3090608@itcare.pl> <20090702053216.GA4954@ff.dom.local> <4A4C48FD.7040002@itcare.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Linux Network Development list , Robert Olsson To: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3?= Staszewski Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f218.google.com ([209.85.220.218]:59824 "EHLO mail-fx0-f218.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751094AbZGBGAP (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 02:00:15 -0400 Received: by fxm18 with SMTP id 18so1249205fxm.37 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A4C48FD.7040002@itcare.pl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:43:25AM +0200, Pawe=B3 Staszewski wrote: > Jarek Poplawski pisze: >> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 12:17:19AM +0200, Pawe=B3 Staszewski wrote: >> =20 >>> Jarek Poplawski pisze: >>> =20 >> ... >> =20 >>>> So, after your findings I'm about to recommend sending to -stable >>>> 3 patches from net-2.6, with additional lowering of threshold_root >>>> settings, but it would be nice if you could give it a try with >>>> CONFIG_PREEMPT instead of CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE (if it doesn't break >>>> your other apps!) It is expected to work this time...;-) Maybe a >>>> bit slower. >>>> >>>> =20 >>> Patch applied to 2.6.29.5 with CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE >>> And working :) >>> =20 >> >> Hmm... It should, because you tested very similar patch already;-) >> Sorry if I didn't make it clear. >> >> =20 > Yes i know there was almost identical one. > And i see this was without sync rcu :) Yes, it looks like we can't free memory so simple because of such huge latencies. =20 > >>> fib_triestats in attached file >>> >>> I think I can test it with PREEMPT enabled but first i must make so= me=20 >>> other tests of my apps that are on server. >>> =20 >> >> It could probably matter only if you're using some broken out-of-tre= e >> patches. Otherwise the kernel is expected to work OK. >> >> =20 > Im a little confused about using of PREEMPT kernel because of past > there was many oopses / lockups :) but yes that was a little long tim= e ago. > I will try to make this test today. > >> Btw., it would be also interesting to check if there is any differen= ce >> wrt. these route cache problems while PREEMPT is enabled. And you're very right! The place we're fixing is the best example. On the other hand, I hope there is not many such places yet. But if we test/fix it there will be one less... Jarek P.