From: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
To: Jakub Sitnicki <jkbs@redhat.com>
Cc: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] ipv4: Don't promote secondaries when flushing addresses
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 14:35:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180607123539.GH16785@orbyte.nwl.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180607141750.434f6201@beetle>
Hi Jakub,
On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 02:17:50PM +0200, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 13:00:29 +0200
> Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 12:13:01PM +0200, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> > > Promoting secondary addresses on address removal makes flushing all
> > > addresses from a device with 1000's of them slow. This is because we
> > > cannot take down the secondary addresses when we are removing the
> > > primary one, which would make it faster.
> > >
> > > However, the userspace, when performing a flush, will in the end remove
> > > all the addresses regardless of secondary address promotion taking
> > > place. Unfortunately the kernel currently cannot distinguish between a
> > > single address removal and a flush of all addresses.
> > >
> > > To help with this case introduce a IFA_F_FLUSH flag that can be used by
> > > userspace to signal that a removal operation is being done because of a
> > > flush. When the flag is set, don't bother with secondary address
> > > promotion as we expect that secondary addresses will be removed soon as
> > > well.
> >
> > Unless you intend to use the flag to allow deleting a specific address
> > with its secondaries (overriding promote_secondaries), maybe it would
> > be more practical to go even further and delete all addresses on the
> > interface if IFA_F_FLUSH is set so that userspace could delete all
> > addresses with one request.
>
> Thanks for input, Michal. The intend as I understand it is to make
> flushing all the addresses fast(er). Let me see if I can rework it
> according to your suggestion. It does make more sense to do it like
> that to me too.
Yes, I agree with Michal. IIRC, flushing a specific primary along with
all it's secondaries from an interface is not even supported by
iproute2, so no need to optimize for that I guess. OTOH, if your
solution allowed to get rid of that nasty loop in ipaddr_flush(), I owe
you one extra beer at the next occasion. :)
Thanks for holding on to this old ticket!
Cheers, Phil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-07 12:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-07 10:13 [RFC net-next] ipv4: Don't promote secondaries when flushing addresses Jakub Sitnicki
2018-06-07 11:00 ` Michal Kubecek
2018-06-07 12:17 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2018-06-07 12:35 ` Phil Sutter [this message]
2018-06-07 13:44 ` Michal Kubecek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180607123539.GH16785@orbyte.nwl.cc \
--to=phil@nwl.cc \
--cc=jkbs@redhat.com \
--cc=mkubecek@suse.cz \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).