netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Get rid of rt_check_expire and rt_garbage_collect

To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Get rid of rt_check_expire and rt_garbage_collect
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 21:23:04 +1000
Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <424E641A.1020609@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <E1DHdsP-0003Lr-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <424E641A.1020609@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 11:21:30AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> Well, I began my work because of the overflow bug in rt_check_expire()...
> Then I realize this function could not work as expected. On a loaded 
> machine, one timer tick is 1 ms.
> During this time, number of chains that are scanned is ridiculous.
> With the standard timer of 60 second, fact is rt_check_expire() is useless.

I see.  What we've got here is a scalability problem with respect
to the number of hash buckets.  As the number of buckets increases,
the amount of work the timer GC has to perform inreases proportionally.

Since the timer GC parameters are fixed, this will eventually break.

Rather than changing the timer GC so that it runs more often to keep
up with the large routing cache, we should get out of this by reducing
the amount of work we have to do.

Imagine an ideal balanced hash table with 2.6 million entries.  That
is, all incoming/outgoing packets belong to flows that are already in
the hash table.  Imagine also that there is no PMTU/link failure taking
place so all entries are valid forever.

In this state there is absolutely no need to execute the timer GC.

Let's remove one of those assumptions and allow there to be entries
which need to expire after a set period.

Instead of having the timer GC clean them up, we can move the expire
check to the place where the entries are used.  That is, we make
ip_route_input/ip_route_output/ipv4_dst_check check whether the
entry has expired.

On the face of it we're doing more work since every routing cache
hit will need to check the validity of the dst.  However, because
it's a single subtraction it is actually pretty cheap.  There is
also no additional cache miss compared to doing it in the timer
GC since we have to read the dst anyway.

Let's go one step further and make the routing cache come to life.
Now there are new entries coming in and we need to remove old ones
in order to make room for them.

That task is currently carried out by the timer GC in rt_check_expire
and on demand by rt_garbage_collect.  Either way we have to walk the
entire routing cache looking for entries to get rid of.

This is quite expensive when the routing cache is large.  However,
there is a better way.

The reason we keep a cap on the routing cache (for a given hash size)
is so that individual chains do not degenerate into long linked lists.

In other words, we don't really care about how many entries there are
in the routing cache.  But we do care about how long each hash chain
is.

So instead of walking the entire routing cache to keep the number of
entries down, what we should do is keep each hash chain as short as
possible.

Assuming that the hash function is good, this should achieve the
same end result.

Here is how it can be done: Every time a routing entry is inserted into
a hash chain, we perform GC on that chain unconditionally.

It might seem that we're doing more work again.  However, as before
because we're traversing the chain anyway, it is very cheap to perform
the GC operations which mainly involve the checks in rt_may_expire.

OK that's enough thinking and it's time to write some code to see
whether this is all bullshit :)

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>