[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240924063258.1edfb590@fedora>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 06:32:58 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: yushengjin <yushengjin@...ontech.com>
Cc: pablo@...filter.org, kadlec@...filter.org, roopa@...dia.com,
razor@...ckwall.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
coreteam@...filter.org, bridge@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net/bridge: Optimizing read-write locks in
ebtables.c
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:09:06 +0800
yushengjin <yushengjin@...ontech.com> wrote:
> When conducting WRK testing, the CPU usage rate of the testing machine was
> 100%. forwarding through a bridge, if the network load is too high, it may
> cause abnormal load on the ebt_do_table of the kernel ebtable module, leading
> to excessive soft interrupts and sometimes even directly causing CPU soft
> deadlocks.
>
> After analysis, it was found that the code of ebtables had not been optimized
> for a long time, and the read-write locks inside still existed. However, other
> arp/ip/ip6 tables had already been optimized a lot, and performance bottlenecks
> in read-write locks had been discovered a long time ago.
>
> Ref link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20090428092411.5331c4a1@nehalam/
>
> So I referred to arp/ip/ip6 modification methods to optimize the read-write
> lock in ebtables.c.
What about doing RCU instead, faster and safer.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists