From: "Timo Teräs" <timo.teras@iki.fi>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: cache bundle lookup results in flow cache
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:53:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BA349A8.9050105@iki.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100319093210.GA23895@gondor.apana.org.au>
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Timo Teräs wrote:
>>> That would be better but it's still hacky. Proper reference
>>> counting like we had before would be my preference.
>> Well, the cache entry is still referenced only very shortly,
>> I don't see why keeping bh disabled why doing it is considered
>> a hack. Refcounting the cache entries is trickier. Though,
>> it could be used to optimize the update process: we could safely
>> update it instead of doing now lookup later.
>
> Well we had a nicely type-agnostic cache which is self-contained,
> but your patch is bleeding generic code into xfrm_policy.c, that's
> why I felt it to be hacky :)
>
> Anyway I see how your scheme works now as far as object life
> is concerned, and I agree that it is safe.
>
> However, I wonder if we could do it while still leaving all the
> object life-cycle management stuff (and the BH disabling bits)
> in flow.c
>
> The crux of the issue is that you now have two objects to track
> instead of one. As the direction is a key in the lookup, we're
> really only worried about the outbound case here.
>
> So how about going back to what I suggested earlier, and keeping
> a back-pointer from xfrm_dst to the policy? Of course xfrm_dst
> would also hold a ref count on the policy. You'd only have to
> do it for the top-level xfrm_dst.
>
> It does mean that you'll need to write a different resolver for
> outbound vs. inbound/forward, but that makes sense because we
> only use bundles for outbound policies.
>
> What do you think?
When I first started reading the code, I got confused slightly
on how the garbage collection is happening. What I did not like
in current is the atomic_dec() in flow.c that does not check if
it was turned to zero. Because on policy objects it means you
need to delete it (which would a bug if it happened in flow.c;
the policy gc calls flush before releasing it's own reference),
but on xfrm_dst it's perfectly ok to do atomic_dec() and the
dst core will garbage collect items.
But now, thinking more, it would probably make more sense to
just cache xfrm_dst's and keep ref to the policy on them. So
in general I agree with your recommendation. The only immediate
problem I can think now is that the resolved would need to
atomically check if xfrm_dst is valid, if not, resolve new one.
But creating new xfrm_dst involves taking locks and can sleep
so it cannot be inside the main resolver.
Alternatively, we'd need to:
a) still expose flow cache entry structs and do locking or
refcounting on them
b) have two version of flow lookup: one that calls resolver
with bh disabled and can atomically lookup and update entry
and a second version that lookups, calls validation, if
not-valid it calls resolver with bh enabled and does a new
flow cache lookup to update cache
Also, relatedly. Is there way to release xfrm_dst's child and
route refs when xfrm_bundle_ok fails? This would improve GC
collection of the ipv4 rtable entries they referenced.
- Timo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-19 9:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-15 12:20 [PATCH] xfrm: cache bundle lookup results in flow cache Timo Teras
2010-03-17 13:07 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-17 14:16 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-17 14:58 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-17 15:56 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-17 16:32 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-18 19:30 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-19 0:31 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-19 5:48 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-19 6:03 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-19 6:21 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-19 7:17 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-19 7:27 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-19 0:32 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-19 7:20 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-19 7:48 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-19 8:29 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-19 8:37 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-19 8:47 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-19 9:12 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-19 9:32 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-19 9:53 ` Timo Teräs [this message]
2010-03-20 15:17 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-20 16:26 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-21 0:46 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-21 7:34 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-21 8:31 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-22 3:52 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-22 18:03 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-23 7:28 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-23 7:42 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-23 9:19 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-23 9:41 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-22 1:26 ` David Miller
2010-03-22 1:28 ` David Miller
2010-03-22 1:32 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-22 1:36 ` David Miller
2010-03-22 1:40 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-22 3:12 ` David Miller
2010-03-22 3:52 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-22 18:31 ` Timo Teräs
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=4BA349A8.9050105@iki.fi \
--to=timo.teras@iki.fi \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--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).