From: Dave Johnson <djohnson+linux-kernel@sw.starentnetworks.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] improved locking performance in rt_run_flush()
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 12:36:47 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <17989.60703.575698.491592@zeus.sw.starentnetworks.com> (raw)
While testing adding/deleting large numbers of interfaces, I found
rt_run_flush() was the #1 cpu user in a kernel profile by far.
The below patch changes rt_run_flush() to only take each spinlock
protecting the rt_hash_table once instead of taking a spinlock for
every hash table bucket (and ending up taking the same small set
of locks over and over).
Deleting 256 interfaces on a 4-way SMP system with 16K buckets reduced
overall cpu-time more than 50% and reduced wall-time about 33%. I
suspect systems with large amounts of memory (and more buckets) will
see an even greater benefit.
Note there is a small change in that rt_free() is called while the
lock is held where before it was called without the lock held. I
don't think this should be an issue.
Signed-off-by: Dave Johnson <djohnson+linux-kernel@sw.starentnetworks.com>
===== net/ipv4/route.c 1.162 vs edited =====
--- 1.162/net/ipv4/route.c 2007-02-14 11:09:54 -05:00
+++ edited/net/ipv4/route.c 2007-05-04 17:53:33 -04:00
@@ -237,9 +237,17 @@
for (i = 0; i < RT_HASH_LOCK_SZ; i++) \
spin_lock_init(&rt_hash_locks[i]); \
}
+# define rt_hash_lock_for_each(lockaddr) \
+ for (lockaddr = rt_hash_lock_addr(RT_HASH_LOCK_SZ-1); lockaddr >= rt_hash_locks; lockaddr--)
+# define rt_hash_lock_for_each_item(locknum, slot) \
+ for (slot = locknum-rt_hash_locks; slot <= rt_hash_mask; slot += RT_HASH_LOCK_SZ)
#else
# define rt_hash_lock_addr(slot) NULL
# define rt_hash_lock_init()
+# define rt_hash_lock_for_each(lockaddr) \
+ lockaddr = NULL;
+# define rt_hash_lock_for_each_item(locknum, slot) \
+ for (slot = rt_hash_mask; slot >= 0; slot--)
#endif
static struct rt_hash_bucket *rt_hash_table;
@@ -691,23 +699,26 @@
static void rt_run_flush(unsigned long dummy)
{
int i;
+ spinlock_t *lockaddr;
struct rtable *rth, *next;
rt_deadline = 0;
get_random_bytes(&rt_hash_rnd, 4);
- for (i = rt_hash_mask; i >= 0; i--) {
- spin_lock_bh(rt_hash_lock_addr(i));
- rth = rt_hash_table[i].chain;
- if (rth)
- rt_hash_table[i].chain = NULL;
- spin_unlock_bh(rt_hash_lock_addr(i));
-
- for (; rth; rth = next) {
- next = rth->u.dst.rt_next;
- rt_free(rth);
+ rt_hash_lock_for_each(lockaddr) {
+ spin_lock_bh(lockaddr);
+ rt_hash_lock_for_each_item(lockaddr, i) {
+ rth = rt_hash_table[i].chain;
+ if (rth) {
+ rt_hash_table[i].chain = NULL;
+ for (; rth; rth = next) {
+ next = rth->u.dst.rt_next;
+ rt_free(rth);
+ }
+ }
}
+ spin_unlock_bh(lockaddr);
}
}
next reply other threads:[~2007-05-12 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-12 16:36 Dave Johnson [this message]
2007-05-14 10:04 ` David Miller
2007-05-20 5:11 ` Herbert Xu
2007-05-31 23:26 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=17989.60703.575698.491592@zeus.sw.starentnetworks.com \
--to=djohnson+linux-kernel@sw.starentnetworks.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®