On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 05:31:58PM +0200, Robert Olsson wrote:
quoted text
> 
> Jarek Poplawski writes:
> 
>  > Yes, it looks like we can't free memory so simple because of such huge
>  > latencies.  
> 
>  Controlling RCU seems crucial. Insertion of the full BGP table increased
>  from 2 seconds to > 20 min with one synchronize_rcu patches.

I wish I knew this a few days before. I could imagine a slow down,
but it looked like it was stuck. Since these last changes weren't
tested on SMP + PREEMPT I thought there is still something broken.
(I was mainly interested in this synchronize_rcu at the moment as
a preemption test.)  

quoted text
>  And fib_trie "worst case" wrt memory is the root node. So maybe we should 
>  monitor changes in root node and use this to control synchronize_rcu.
> 
>  Didn't Paul suggest something like this?

Sure, and it needs testing, but we should send some safe preemption
fix for -stable first, don't we?

quoted text
>  And with don't find any decent solution we have to add an option for 
>  a fixed and pre-allocated root-nod typically for BGP-routers.

Probably you're right; I'd prefer to see the test results showing
a difference vs. simply less aggressive root thresholds. But of
course, even if not convinced, I'll respect your choice as the author
and maintainer, so feel free to NAK my proposals - I won't get it
personally.;-)

Cheers,
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