Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:33:08 +0400 From: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@FreeBSD.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@yandex-team.ru>, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] ipfw SMP-ready dynamic states Message-ID: <50A2AE84.5040304@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <50A2AA89.9060309@mu.org> References: <50A29F57.6090701@yandex-team.ru> <50A2AA89.9060309@mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14.11.2012 00:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Alexander, this is awesome. > > On 11/13/12 11:28 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >> Hello list! >> >> Currently most ipfw operations with dynamic states (keep-state, >> check-state, limit) are serialized via IPFW_DYN_LOCK() which is >> per-vnet mutex lock. >> >> As a result, performance is limited to the same ~650kpps as in routing >> (in several cases). >> >> Patch changes the following: >> * global lock is changed to per-bucket mutex >> * state expiration is done in ipfw_tick every 1s. No expiration is >> done on forwarding path >> * hash table resize is done automatically and does not cause all >> states to be lost >> >> The only (architectural) problem I see is unlocked V_dyn_count >> increments. >> So, we can do the following: >> 1) lock increments/decrements via some separate mutex >> 2) do nothing >> 3) take some combined approach: >> >> Generally, we don't need value to be _exact_. >> As a result, we count total number of states in every ipfw_tick run >> and set V_dyn_count to new value. New states still increment >> V_dyn_count unlocked. >> > What about using per-cpu PCPU counters, and then collecting them for > display/reporting? We currently don't have working dynamic PCPU counters in our base system. However, there is a patch implementing such counters based on UMA. (And we're testing it on ipfw :) ). I hope it will be announced till the end of this month. > > -Alfred > > >> >> Performance: >> >> Synthetic traffic, ipfw with single allow ip from any to any rule: 2.4M. >> single keep-state ip from any to any: 2.2M. >> >> Some more tests should be taken (with large number of states, >> different types of traffic, etc), maybe I can do some next week. >> >> >> You need to run recent -current or merge r242631 and r242834 before >> applying this patch. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50A2AE84.5040304>