From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ipv4: fib: Replay events when registering
 FIB notifier
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 07:19:59 -0700
Message-ID: <1478009999.7065.334.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
References: <1477948427-9189-1-git-send-email-idosch@idosch.org>
         <1477949046.7065.320.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
         <20161031225737.7nfoy4ka3ydzhptq@splinter>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, jiri@mellanox.com,
        mlxsw@mellanox.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com,
        dsa@cumulusnetworks.com, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com,
        andy@greyhouse.net, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com,
        andrew@lunn.ch, f.fainelli@gmail.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com,
        kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
        kaber@trash.net, Ido Schimmel <idosch@mellanox.com>
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com ([209.85.192.195]:34491 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S966312AbcKAOUF (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:20:05 -0400
Received: by mail-pf0-f195.google.com with SMTP id y68so5943691pfb.1
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 07:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20161031225737.7nfoy4ka3ydzhptq@splinter>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2016-11-01 at 00:57 +0200, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 02:24:06PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> > How well will this work for large FIB tables ?
> > 
> > Holding rtnl while sending thousands of skb will prevent consumers to
> > make progress ?
> 
> Can you please clarify what do you mean by "while sending thousands of
> skb"? This patch doesn't generate notifications to user space, but
> instead invokes notification routines inside the kernel. I probably
> misunderstood you.
> 
> Are you suggesting this be done using RCU instead? Well, there are a
> couple of reasons why I took RTNL here:
> 

No, I do not believe RCU is wanted here, in control path where we might
sleep anyway.

> 1) The FIB notification chain is blocking, so listeners are expected to
> be able to sleep. This isn't possible if we use RCU. Note that this
> chain is mainly useful for drivers that reflect the FIB table into a
> capable device and hardware operations usually involve sleeping.
> 
> 2) The insertion of a single route is done with RTNL held. I didn't want
> to differentiate between both cases. This property is really useful for
> listeners, as they don't need to worry about locking in writer-side.
> Access to data structs is serialized by RTNL.

My concern was that for large iterations, you might hold RTNL and/or
current cpu for hundred of ms or even seconds...