From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RESEND] [NET] fib_rules: Flush route cache after rule modifications Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20070328.112417.08322226.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20070327133845.GM521@postel.suug.ch> <20070328111921.GA2703@ff.dom.local> <20070328154903.GO521@postel.suug.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jarkao2@o2.pl, netdev@vger.kernel.org, muli@il.ibm.com To: tgraf@suug.ch Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:53236 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965636AbXC1SYX (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:24:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070328154903.GO521@postel.suug.ch> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Thomas Graf Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:49:03 +0200 > * Jarek Poplawski 2007-03-28 13:19 > > I hope I'm wrong, but isn't this at the cost of admins > > working with long rules' sets, which (probably) take extra > > time now? > > That's right, it makes the insert and delete operation more > expensive. > > A compromise would be to delay the flushing and wait for > some time (default 2 seconds) whether more rules or routes > are being added before flushing. Another idea Thomas and I tossed around was to have some kind of way for the rule insertion to indicate that the flush should be deferred and I kind of prefer that explicitness. By default it's better the flush immediately, because the old behavior is totally unexpected. "I insert a rule and it dosn't show up?", nobody expects that.