| To: | sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 22 May 2003 01:58:15 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030522084003.GA22613@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20030520074848.U40843@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030520.173607.88482742.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030522084003.GA22613@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 01:40:03 -0700
9631 handle_IRQ_event 60.1938
Are you using APIC irqs?
26552 fn_hash_lookup 92.1944
Hmm! I guess the routing table size has a slight difference on
performance there.
I assume you have CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_LARGE_TABLES enabled.
If not, try with that turned on. If you had it on or enabling
it makes little difference, it is time to play with FZ_MAX_DIVISOR
and fn_hash().
All of your BGP routes have the same prefix right? Yes, with ~181000
routes which you have fib zone hash in current state will fall to
pieces I am afraid. (even with perfect hash, chain length would be
on the order of ~180 entries :-((( )
I'm not sure if this is a "good" profile or not... I can try with
oprofile or something instead if that gives more useful results.
It is good, thanks.
Alexey, I will try to make something...
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Simon Kirby |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Simon Kirby |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |