Re: [PATCH 1/3] sysfs directory scaling: rbtree for dirent name lookups

From: Eric W. Biederman
Date: Tue Nov 03 2009 - 16:32:43 EST

Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 07:50:58PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 11:31:30AM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
>> > Use an rbtree in sysfs_dirent to speed up file lookup times
>> >
>> > Systems with large numbers (tens of thousands and more) of network
>> > interfaces stress the sysfs code in ways that make the linear search for
>> > a name match take far too long. Avoid this by using an rbtree.
>> What kind of speedups are you seeing here? And do these changes cause a
>> memory increase due to the structure changes which outweigh the
>> speedups?
> Depends on the number of interfaces being created. Without the patch,
> interface creation time tends to double or worse for every 5,000-10,000
> additional network interfaces.
>> What kind of test are you doing to reproduce this?
> I'm creating 30,000+ network interfaces, with the goal being 100,000.
> With other hacks in the tree to get around the sysctl and procfs scaling
> issues, as well as disabling things like NetworkManager, the results look
> as follows:
> Interfaces no-rb rbtree rbtree+list
> 0-5,000 13.8s 14.0s 13.0s
> 5,000-10,000 20.0s 17.4s 14.4s
> 10,000-15,000 27.3s 24.1s 16.9s
> 15,000-20,000 36.3s 32.2s 19.7s
> 20,000-25,000 45.2s 40.0s 22.9s
> 25,000-30,000 54.2s 48.2s 26.6s
> 30,000-35,000 63.9s 54.9s 30.7s
> Thoughts?

Something is very weird. I just took your no-rb numbers
and divided by the number of interfaces to see how well we are
scaling. I got:

Interfaces per-interface cost
5,000 0.002760s
10,000 0.002000s
15,000 0.001820s
20,000 0.001815s
25,000 0.001808s
30,000 0.001807s
35,000 0.001826s

I ran a variant of this test a long time ago and at that the
cost per interface grew with additional interfaces added. This
jives with the fact that the fundamental cost of adding N
network interfaces to sysfs is O(N^2).

Are your numbers from your application and are they real world?
In which case they are interesting, but it would be good if
we could also have microbenchmark numbers that just measure
the sysfs costs. If nothing else I am seeing a big startup
overhead that isn't being subtracted out that makes it hard
to see the real costs here.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at