Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock

[Sven-Thorsten Dietrich]

On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 18:17 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:13:11 -0700
> 
> > On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 18:03 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:54:04 -0400
> > > 
> > > > Note that -rt doesnt typically context-switch under contention anymore
> > > > since we introduced adaptive-locks.  Also note that the contention
> > > > against the lock is still contention, regardless of whether you have -rt
> > > > or not.  Its just that the slow-path to handle the contended case for
> > > > -rt is more expensive than mainline.  However, once you have the
> > > > contention as stated, you have already lost.
> > > 
> > > First, contention is not implicitly a bad thing.
> >
> > Its a bad thing when it does not scale.
> 
> You have only one pipe to shove packets into in this case, and for
> your workload multiple cpus are going to be trying to stuff a single
> packet at a time from a single UDP send request.
> 
> There is no added parallelism you can create for that kind of workload
> on that kind of hardware.
> 

Do we have to rule-out per-CPU queues, that aggregate into a master
queue in a batch-wise manner? 

I speculate that might reduce the lock contention by a factor of NCPUs.
I cannot say this would be enough to mitigate the consequent overhead
penalty. 

> It is one of the issues addressed by multiqueue.

Properly tuned adaptive locks, would theoretically perform
near-optimally compared to the mainline case, and would provide better
CPU utilization on very large parallel architectures. 

Sven

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/