> Jarek Poplawski pisze:
>> 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
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>
>
