On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 09:23:40AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 06:15:00PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 05:54:10PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 08:30:10AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 05:10:52PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 03:52:55PM +0200, Robert Olsson wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Jarek Poplawski writes:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  Thanks, 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  Should be worth testing so we synchronize_rcu instead of doing call_rcu's
> > > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Alas take 2 (nor 1) doesn't compile, so here it is again.
> > > > 
> > > > So the idea is to balance memory and latency, so that large changes
> > > > (those affecting the root node) get at least one synchronize_rcu(),
> > > > while smaller changes just use call_rcu(), correct?  This means that
> > > > the amount of memory awaiting an RCU grace period is limited, but
> > > > the algorithm avoids per-node synchronize_rcu() overhead.
> > > > 
> > > > If I understand the goal correctly, looks good!  (Give or take my
> > > > limited understanding of fib_trie and is usage, of course.)
> > > 
> > > The goal is practically to replace all call_rcu() during
> > > trie_rebalance() with synchronize_rcu() (except some freeing after
> > > ENOMEM). I guess currently (<= 2.6.30) call_rcu() can free this
> > > memory after trie_rebalance() has finished, that's why there were
> > > problems with enabled preemption. So this patch tries to do/force
> > > this a bit earlier - at least before the top/largest node is
> > > rebalanced.
> > 
> > On the other hand, we could probably stay with call_rcu() plus only
> > one synchronize_rcu() before the top node's resize() if you think it's
> > enough here?
> 
> Well, my first task is to understand the problem/goal.  ;-)
> 
> My guess from what you said above is that use of call_rcu(), when
> combined with changes to the trie in rapid succession, is resulting
> in excessive memory awaiting a grace period.  Is this the case, or am I
> confused?

Exactly! (I guess... ;-)

Thanks,
Jarek P.
quoted text
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > > 
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Jarek P.
> > > > > --- (take 3 - for testing)
> > > > > 
> > > > >  net/ipv4/fib_trie.c |   30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > > > >  1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c b/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
> > > > > index 012cf5a..1a4c4b7 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
> > > > > @@ -366,6 +366,17 @@ static void __tnode_vfree(struct work_struct *arg)
> > > > >  	vfree(tn);
> > > > >  }
> > > > > 
> > > > > +static void __tnode_free(struct tnode *tn)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	size_t size = sizeof(struct tnode) +
> > > > > +		      (sizeof(struct node *) << tn->bits);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	if (size <= PAGE_SIZE)
> > > > > +		kfree(tn);
> > > > > +	else
> > > > > +		vfree(tn);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > >  static void __tnode_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >  	struct tnode *tn = container_of(head, struct tnode, rcu);
> > > > > @@ -402,7 +413,7 @@ static void tnode_free_flush(void)
> > > > >  	while ((tn = tnode_free_head)) {
> > > > >  		tnode_free_head = tn->tnode_free;
> > > > >  		tn->tnode_free = NULL;
> > > > > -		tnode_free(tn);
> > > > > +		__tnode_free(tn);
> > > > >  	}
> > > > >  }
> > > > > 
> > > > > @@ -1021,18 +1032,25 @@ static void trie_rebalance(struct trie *t, struct tnode *tn)
> > > > >  				      (struct node *)tn, wasfull);
> > > > > 
> > > > >  		tp = node_parent((struct node *) tn);
> > > > > -		tnode_free_flush();
> > > > >  		if (!tp)
> > > > >  			break;
> > > > >  		tn = tp;
> > > > >  	}
> > > > > 
> > > > > +	if (tnode_free_head) {
> > > > > +		synchronize_rcu();
> > > > > +		tnode_free_flush();
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > >  	/* Handle last (top) tnode */
> > > > > -	if (IS_TNODE(tn))
> > > > > +	if (IS_TNODE(tn)) {
> > > > >  		tn = (struct tnode *)resize(t, (struct tnode *)tn);
> > > > > -
> > > > > -	rcu_assign_pointer(t->trie, (struct node *)tn);
> > > > > -	tnode_free_flush();
> > > > > +		rcu_assign_pointer(t->trie, (struct node *)tn);
> > > > > +		synchronize_rcu();
> > > > > +		tnode_free_flush();
> > > > > +	} else {
> > > > > +		rcu_assign_pointer(t->trie, (struct node *)tn);
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > 
> > > > >  	return;
> > > > >  }
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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
--
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