Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, 5 May 2020 07:53:39 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:54 AM SeongJae Park wrote: > > > > CC-ing sta...@vger.kernel.org and adding some more explanations. > > > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 10:10:33 +0200 SeongJae Park wrote: > > > > > From: SeongJae Park > > > > > > The comm

Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, 5 May 2020 08:20:50 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > On 5/5/20 8:07 AM, SeongJae Park wrote: > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 07:53:39 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > >> Why do we have 10,000,000 objects around ? Could this be because of > >> some RCU problem ? > > > > Mainly because of a lo

Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:47 AM SeongJae Park wrote: > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 08:20:50 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > > On 5/5/20 8:07 AM, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 07:53:39 -0700 Eric Dumazet > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Why do we have 10,000,000 objects around ? Could

Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 09:00:44AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > Not exactly the 10,000,000, as it is only the possible highest number, but I > > was able to observe clear exponential increase of the number of the objects > > using slabtop. Before the start of the problematic workload, the numbe

Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:37:42 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > On 5/5/20 9:31 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > On 5/5/20 9:25 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 5/5/20 9:13 AM, SeongJae Park wrote: > >>> On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:00:44 -0700 Eric Dumazet > >>> wrote: > >>> > On Tue,

Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 07:05:53PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:37:42 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > > On 5/5/20 9:31 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 5/5/20 9:25 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 5/5/20 9:13 AM, SeongJae Park wrote: > >

Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, 5 May 2020 10:23:58 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 09:25:06AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > On 5/5/20 9:13 AM, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:00:44 -0700 Eric Dumazet > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:47 AM SeongJ

Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, 5 May 2020 10:28:50 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 09:37:42AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > On 5/5/20 9:31 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 5/5/20 9:25 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 5/5/20 9:13 AM, SeongJae Park wrote:

Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 07:49:43PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Tue, 5 May 2020 10:23:58 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" > wrote: > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 09:25:06AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 5/5/20 9:13 AM, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:00:44 -0700

Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, 05 May 2020 12:00:49 -0700 (PDT) David Miller wrote: > From: David Miller > Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 11:48:25 -0700 (PDT) > > > Series applied and queued up for -stable, thanks. > > Nevermind, this doesn't even compile. > > net/smc/af_smc.c: In function ‘smc_switch_to_fallback’: > net/

Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:00:44 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:47 AM SeongJae Park wrote: > > > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 08:20:50 -0700 Eric Dumazet > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/5/20 8:07 AM, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 07:53:39 -0700 Eric Dumazet >

Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, 5 May 2020 10:30:36 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 07:05:53PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:37:42 -0700 Eric Dumazet > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/5/20 9:31 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/5/20 9:25 AM,

Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 07:56:05PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Tue, 5 May 2020 10:30:36 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" > wrote: > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 07:05:53PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:37:42 -0700 Eric Dumazet > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, 5 May 2020 11:27:20 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 07:49:43PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 10:23:58 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 09:25:06AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On

Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 08:40:07PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Tue, 5 May 2020 11:27:20 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" > wrote: > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 07:49:43PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 10:23:58 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, May

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, 5 May 2020 11:17:07 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 07:56:05PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 10:30:36 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 07:05:53PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 0

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 08:34:02PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Tue, 5 May 2020 11:17:07 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" > wrote: > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 07:56:05PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 10:30:36 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, May

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

TL; DR: It was not kernel's fault, but the benchmark program. So, the problem is reproducible using the lebench[1] only. I carefully read it's code again. Before running the problem occurred "poll big" sub test, lebench executes "context switch" sub test. For the test, it sets the cpu affinity[

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 5:59 AM SeongJae Park wrote: > > TL; DR: It was not kernel's fault, but the benchmark program. > > So, the problem is reproducible using the lebench[1] only. I carefully read > it's code again. > > Before running the problem occurred "poll big" sub test, lebench executes >

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:59:26PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > TL; DR: It was not kernel's fault, but the benchmark program. > > So, the problem is reproducible using the lebench[1] only. I carefully read > it's code again. > > Before running the problem occurred "poll big" sub test, lebench e

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

On Wed, 6 May 2020 07:41:51 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:59:26PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > > TL; DR: It was not kernel's fault, but the benchmark program. > > > > So, the problem is reproducible using the lebench[1] only. I carefully read > > it's code again.