From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net_sched: bulk free tcf_block
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 14:07:19 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpU7rXqE0iXQzr5kJx2ab_v6OXmL1drt+VJYJAGoL5dyug@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1512126307.3155.26.camel@redhat.com>
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the feedback.
>
> I tested your patch and in the above scenario I measure:
>
> real 0m0.017s
> user 0m0.000s
> sys 0m0.017s
>
> so it apparently works well for this case.
Thanks a lot for testing it! I will test it further. If it goes well I will
send a formal patch with your Tested-by unless you object it.
>
> We could still have a storm of rtnl lock/unlock operations while
> deleting a large tc tree with lot of filters, and I think we can reduce
> them with bulk free, evenutally applying it to filters, too.
>
> That will also reduce the pressure on the rtnl lock when e.g. OVS H/W
> offload pushes a lot of rules/sec.
>
> WDYT?
>
Why this is specific to tc filter? From what you are saying, we need to
batch all TC operations (qdisc, filter and action) rather than just filter?
In short term, I think batching rtnl lock/unlock is a good optimization,
so I have no objection. For long term, I think we need to revise RTNL
lock and probably move it down to each layer, but clearly it requires
much more work.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-01 22:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-29 14:25 [RFC PATCH] net_sched: bulk free tcf_block Paolo Abeni
2017-11-29 16:14 ` Alexander Duyck
2017-11-29 18:47 ` Paolo Abeni
2017-12-01 7:14 ` Cong Wang
2017-12-01 11:05 ` Paolo Abeni
2017-12-01 22:07 ` Cong Wang [this message]
2017-12-04 10:12 ` Paolo Abeni
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=CAM_iQpU7rXqE0iXQzr5kJx2ab_v6OXmL1drt+VJYJAGoL5dyug@mail.gmail.com \
--to=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/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).