[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1255438959.6305.13.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:02:38 -0400
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To: Denys Fedoryschenko <denys@...p.net.lb>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: kernel mode pppoe ppp if + ifb + mirred redirect, ethernet
packets in ifb?!
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 15:45 +0300, Denys Fedoryschenko wrote:
> First problem, on restart and massive users login i am getting some weird
> locking problem with modprobe,probably related to busybox/mdev.
> When interface come up, maybe it is problem of mdev, it is trying to do
> modprobe with ip address as attribute. Probably they must not modprobe on
> virtual interface. It is not easy to track who is reason of such call.
>
> As result:
> [ 174.564503] request_module: runaway loop modprobe 172.16.3.1
> [ 174.564702] request_module: runaway loop modprobe 172.16.3.1
> [ 174.801355] request_module: runaway loop modprobe 172.16.106.1
> [ 174.801487] request_module: runaway loop modprobe 172.16.106.1
> [ 175.011415] request_module: runaway loop modprobe 172.16.106.1
> load average (even it doesn't mean anything in terms of CPU load) jumps to
> 72-80.
>
Strange. But would probably make sense to modprobe the virtual interface
then assign ip address to it.
> Another bottleneck is u32 (i can optimize but) and some strange locks
> appearing at top of perf, maybe same as logon case.
like you say u32 can be optimized
> And yes, pppd also appearing, but seems just registering new sysctls (for new
> interface?) takes a lot of resources.
>
back in the days (when i was involved in pppoe) pppd was a big problem
because it was not rentrant, so to solve the problem you exec a new
process for each user..
Ben Lahaise did a lot of work in this area and i am pretty sure decided
not to use pppd.
> I can post perf -a -f g if you are interested for "logging in" case and
> regular operation.
>
Sure - but i may not be much use to you..
I have CCed Ben.
>
> Here is key part of shaper code:
>
Ok - makes sense. I know some people using mark for ingress pseudo RPF.
And given instability of netfilter interface, I may just end up patching
skbedit.
> Well another way is just to use as you suggest - egress on output
> interface(s).
Sure; If it becomes an issue let me know.
cheers,
jamal
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists