From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [patch net-next] net: sched: don't dump chains only held by actions Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:48:08 +0200 Message-ID: <20180731084808.GD2154@nanopsycho> References: <20180727074505.855-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20180729075146.GA2260@nanopsycho.orion> <20180731063258.GA2154@nanopsycho> <20180731010146.0706283a@cakuba.netronome.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Cong Wang , Linux Kernel Network Developers , David Miller , Jamal Hadi Salim , mlxsw@mellanox.com To: Jakub Kicinski Return-path: Received: from mail-wr1-f46.google.com ([209.85.221.46]:34942 "EHLO mail-wr1-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729224AbeGaKaK (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2018 06:30:10 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f46.google.com with SMTP id a3-v6so15732214wrt.2 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 01:50:52 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180731010146.0706283a@cakuba.netronome.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:01:46AM CEST, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com wrote: >On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 08:32:58 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> 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 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 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:47 AM Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > From: Jiri Pirko >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> Looks reasonable to me. >> >> >> >> >> >> Acked-by: Cong Wang >> >> > >> >> >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? > >FWIW to me active brings to mind that it's handling traffic. Brining in >my suggestions from an off-list discussion: > >tcf_chain_act_refs_only() or tcf_chain_pure_act_target() :/ > >or maybe tcf_chain_has_no_filters() ? That is not accurate, as explicitly created chain does not have any filters too. I think this is good: tcf_chain_held_by_acts_only()