Jarek Poplawski pisze:

quoted text
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:43:25AM +0200, Paweł Staszewski wrote:

>

>> Jarek Poplawski pisze:

>>

>>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 12:17:19AM +0200, Paweł Staszewski wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>> Jarek Poplawski pisze:

>>>>

>>>>

>>> ...

>>>

>>>

>>>>> 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.

>>>>>

>>>>>

Ok kernel configured with CONFIG_PREEMPT

and all this day work without any problems (with Jarek last patch).

So in attached file trere is fib_tirestats

I dont see any big change of (cpu load or faster/slower

routing/propagating routes from bgpd or something else) - in avg there

is from 2% to 3% more of CPU load i dont know why but it is - i change

from "preempt" to "no preempt" 3 times and check this my "mpstat -P ALL

1 30"

always avg cpu load was from 2 to 3% more compared to "no preempt"
Regards

Paweł Staszewski
>>>>>

quoted text
>>>>>

>>>> Patch applied to 2.6.29.5 with CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE

>>>> And working :)

>>>>

>>>>

>>> Hmm... It should, because you tested very similar patch already;-)

>>> Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>> 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.

>

>

>>>> fib_triestats in attached file

>>>>

>>>> I think I can test it with PREEMPT enabled but first i must make some

>>>>  other tests of my apps that are on server.

>>>>

>>>>

>>> It could probably matter only if you're using some broken out-of-tree

>>> patches. Otherwise the kernel is expected to work OK.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>> 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 difference

>>> 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.

>

>

>   

--

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