From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 17 May 2002 12:11:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 17 May 2002 12:11:37 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.101]:23196 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 17 May 2002 12:11:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 21:44:33 +0530 From: Dipankar Sarma To: "David S. Miller" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 16-CPU #s for lockfree rtcache (rt_rcu) Message-ID: <20020517214433.A15556@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: dipankar@in.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <20020517192116.G12631@in.ibm.com> <20020517.064921.80183164.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 06:49:21AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Dipankar Sarma > Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 19:21:16 +0530 > > 2.5.3 : ip_route_output_key [c01bab8c]: 12166 > 2.5.3+rt_rcu : ip_route_output_key [c01bb084]: 6027 > > Thanks for doing the testing. Are you able to do this > test on some 4 or 8 processor non-NUMA system? Yes, but may not have been the same test. We have been doing various configurations for this test. One fallout of using large number of dest addresses is that we have frequent neighbor table garbage collection which results in a lot of lock contentions. By slowing down the packet rate and/or increasing the gc threshold, we can avoid this. How realistic is this ? If we avoid frequent gc, we see better gains in route lookup. With frequent gc, the speedup was of about 22% for an 8 cpu SMP, IIRC. I will rerun the tests tomorrow or monday to get both sets of numbers for 8-cpu SMP. Thanks -- Dipankar Sarma http://lse.sourceforge.net Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.