Re: [RFC PATCH v2] bridge: make it possible for packets to traverse the bridge without hitting netfilter

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1132 bytes --]



On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 10:57 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 15:31:15 +0000
> 
> > Eschewing a 15% speedup on the basis that "well, even though we've had
> > three of these already for a decade, we're worried that adding a fourth
> > might open the floodgates to further patches" does seem a little odd to
> > me, FWIW.
> 
> The cost we are dealing with is a fundamental one which is a result of
> the hook design.
> 
> Indirect calls are killer.
> 
> Indirect calls are even more killer now in the age of Spectre and
> retpolines.

Imre's 15% measurement was, obviously, before that. We should redo it
and confirm the numbers.

> I definitely would rather see the fundamental issue addressed rather
> than poking at it randomly with knobs for this case and that.

Yeah. What do you think of the suggestion I made — that a given hook
should automatically disable itself if it tautologically does nothing?
Coupled with notifiers for when the rules change, to re-enable the
hooks again? I confess I don't even know how realistic that is.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 5213 bytes --]