LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Linux kernel small forwarding perf (was: RE: Small packets handling

To: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Linux kernel small forwarding perf (was: RE: Small packets handling : LVS-DR vs LVS-NAT)
Cc: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Alexandre Cassen <alexandre.cassen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 01:55:03 +0200 (CEST)
Hi Julian,

>...
> The ip rules are complex enough and I see many problems.
> May be one should start with implementing different rules and
> routes suitable for smarter caching and for other purposes
> such as load balancing, failover, etc :)

Yes, I spend long time in this code and the dependance with
low level qos code introduce many complications... I have tried
many things to optimize this but changing the current rt_cache
structure will broke some routings dependances... even RCU
spin_lock optimization don't increase perf.
 
> > rt_cache design is the kernel forwarding performance bottleneck :/
> 
>       It is true but the things are very complex.

as you said :), what about not adding new entries per packets in the
rt_cache ? that way hash key will miss and submit routing lookup and
gc_.. will have a simple low job not the current big linearization aging task.
I was thinking of the _intern_hash func to not append new entries ?

do you think this will increase a little perf ?

Best regs,
Alexandre
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>