From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next] net: sched: don't dump chains only held by
 actions
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 08:32:58 +0200
Message-ID: <20180731063258.GA2154@nanopsycho>
References: <20180727074505.855-1-jiri@resnulli.us>
 <CAM_iQpVsENuQh9iCGbqWXkOjg7880PN0cDG+dw0dYR1F2Z+OLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM_iQpV2LXPD-8PD=gK_xsuSv7nvQKZbg-miQdUDaQCcx3XjNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180729075146.GA2260@nanopsycho.orion>
 <CAM_iQpWE1SW44dQGASSwB6UHD_tBCM+K_N2=y6-JcO9ANOSiww@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        mlxsw@mellanox.com
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:55607 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726086AbeGaIO0 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 31 Jul 2018 04:14:26 -0400
Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id f21-v6so1729341wmc.5
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpWE1SW44dQGASSwB6UHD_tBCM+K_N2=y6-JcO9ANOSiww@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 08:19:56PM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:54 AM Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>
>> Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 07:39:36PM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com wrote:
>> >On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:20 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:47 AM Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>
>> >> >
>> >> > In case a chain is empty and not explicitly created by a user,
>> >> > such chain should not exist. The only exception is if there is
>> >> > an action "goto chain" pointing to it. In that case, don't show the
>> >> > chain in the dump. Track the chain references held by actions and
>> >> > use them to find out if a chain should or should not be shown
>> >> > in chain dump.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>
>> >>
>> >> Looks reasonable to me.
>> >>
>> >> Acked-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >Hold on...
>> >
>> >If you increase the refcnt for a zombie chain on NEWCHAIN path,
>> >then it would become a non-zombie, this makes sense. However,
>> >if the action_refcnt gets increased again when another action uses it,
>> >it become a zombie again because refcnt==action_refcnt??
>>
>> No. action always increases both refcnt and action_refcnt
>
>Hmm, then the name zombie is confusing, with your definition all
>chains implicitly created by actions are zombies, unless touched
>by user explicitly. Please find a better name.

Okay. Perhaps chain_inactive?

>
>Also, tcf_chain_get_by_act() could send out RTM_NEWCHAIN too,
>which is confusing too as it is still a "zombie".

Will check.