netdev - Re: Scalability of interface creation and deletion

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:	Mon, 9 May 2011 00:11:15 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
Subject: Re: Scalability of interface creation and deletion

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 11:00:47PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le dimanche 08 mai 2011 à 08:48 -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> > On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 04:17:42PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> > > 
> > > If 6 jiffies per call to ensure cpus are idle is a fact of life,
> > > then the question goes back to why interface removal is waiting
> > > for rcu readers to be released synchronously, as opposed to
> > > doing the update bits synchronously, then doing the reclaim
> > > element (freeing the memory) afterwards using call_rcu.
> > 
> > This would speed things up considerably, assuming that there is no
> > other reason to block for an RCU grace period.
> 
> Thats not so simple... Things are modular and better be safe than crash,
> on a very rare event (device dismantles are not the thing we expect to
> do very often. Only special needs might need to perform hundred of them
> per minute...)

I was afraid of that, but had to ask...

> For example, in the VLAN dismantle phase (ip link del eth0.103)
> we have 3 calls to synchronize_rcu() and one call to rcu_barrier()
> 
> [ the 'extra' synchronize_rcu() call comes from unregister_vlan_dev() ]
> 
> Maybe with new VLAN model, we could now remove this synchronize_net()
> call from vlan code. Jesse what do you think ?
> Once vlan_group_set_device(grp, vlan_id, NULL) had been called, why
> should we respect one rcu grace period at all, given dev is queued to
> unregister_netdevice_queue() [ which has its own couples of
> synchronize_net() / rcu_barrier() ]
> 
> 
> The real scalability problem of device dismantles comes from the fact
> that all these waits are done under RTNL mutex. This is the real killer
> because you cannot use your eight cpus, even if you are willing to.
> 
> We can probably speed things, but we should consider the following user
> actions :
> 
> ip link add link eth0 vlan103 type vlan id 103
> ip link del vlan103
> ip link add link eth1 vlan103 type vlan id 103
> 
> The "link del" command should return to user only if the minimum things
> had been done, to make sure the following "link add" wont fail
> mysteriously.

Hmmm...  One approach would be to use synchronize_rcu_expedited(), though
that is a bit of a big hammer.

							Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html