netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Get rid of rt_check_expire and rt_garbage_collect

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Get rid of rt_check_expire and rt_garbage_collect
From: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:03:42 +0200
Cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050402112304.GA11321@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <E1DHdsP-0003Lr-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <424E641A.1020609@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050402112304.GA11321@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Herbert Xu writes:

 > 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.

 Yeep.

 > 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.


 Agree... It's very interesting and worth to test something like this.
 also it could clean up the GC process and the need for tuning which 
 would be very welcome.

                                           --ro
 

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