From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3_Staszewski?= Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6] Re: rib_trie / Fix inflate_threshold_root. Now=15 size=11 bits Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:43:25 +0200 Message-ID: <4A4C48FD.7040002@itcare.pl> References: <20090630070929.GB5589@ff.dom.local> <4A4A72B9.3030400@itcare.pl> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Linux Network Development list , Robert Olsson To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from smtp.iq.pl ([86.111.241.19]:36121 "EHLO smtp.iq.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751119AbZGBFnY (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 01:43:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090702053216.GA4954@ff.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 >>> =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 :) >> fib_triestats in attached file >> >> I think I can test it with PREEMPT enabled but first i must make som= e =20 >> other tests of my apps that are on server. >> =20 > > It could probably matter only if you're using some broken out-of-tree > 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 time = ago. I will try to make this test today. > Btw., it would be also interesting to check if there is any differenc= e > wrt. these route cache problems while PREEMPT is enabled. > > Thanks, > Jarek P. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > =20