linux-kernel - Re:Performance regression in ip_set

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:30:37 +0800 (CST)
From: "David Wang" <00107082@....com>
To: "Jozsef Kadlecsik" <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>, ale.crismani@...omattic.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, 
	"Pablo Neira Ayuso" <pablo@...filter.org>, xiaolinkui@...inos.cn
Subject: Re:Performance regression in ip_set_swap on 6.7.0


At 2024-01-14 02:24:07, "Jozsef Kadlecsik" <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jan 2024, David Wang wrote:
>
>> I tested the patch with code stressing swap->destroy->create->add 10000 
>> times, the performance regression still happens, and now it is 
>> ip_set_destroy. (I pasted the test code at the end of this mail)

>> 
>> They all call wait_for_completion, which may sleep on something on 
>> purpose, I guess...
>
>That's OK because ip_set_destroy() calls rcu_barrier() which is needed to 
>handle flush in list type of sets.
>
>However, rcu_barrier() with call_rcu() together makes multiple destroys 
>one after another slow. But rcu_barrier() is needed for list type of sets 
>only and that can be handled separately. So could you test the patch 
>below? According to my tests it is even a little bit faster than the 
>original code before synchronize_rcu() was added to swap.

Confirmed~! This patch does fix the performance regression in my case.

Hope it can fix ale.crismani@...omattic.com's original issue.



Thanks~
David