netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: allow netdev_wait

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:	Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:09:44 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
CC:	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...et.ca>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...acom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: allow netdev_wait_allrefs() to run faster

Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> Octavian Purdila a écrit :
>> On Sunday 18 October 2009 21:21:44 you wrote:
>>>> The msleep(250) should be tuned first. Then if this is really necessary
>>>> to dismantle 100.000 netdevices per second, we might have to think a bit
>>>> more. 
>>>> Just try msleep(1 or 2), it should work quite well.
>>> My goal is tearing down 100,000 interfaces in a few seconds, which really
>>>  is  necessary.  Right now we're running about 40,000 interfaces on a not
>>>  yet saturated 10Gbps link.  Going to dual 10Gbps links means pushing more
>>>  than 100,000 subscriber interfaces, and it looks like a modern dual socket
>>>  system can handle that.
>>>
>> I would also like to see this patch in, we are running into scalability issues 
>> with creating/deleting lots of interfaces as well.
> 
> Ben patch only address interface deletion, and one part of the problem,
> maybe the more visible one for the current kernel.
> 
> Adding lots of interfaces only needs several threads to run concurently.
> 
> Before applying/examining his patch I suggest identifying all dev_put() spots than
> can be deleted and replaced by something more scalable. I began this job
> but others can help me.
> 
> RTNL and rcu grace periods are going to hurt anyway, so you probably need
> to use many tasks to be able to delete lots of interfaces in parallel.
> 
> netdev_run_todo() should also use a better algorithm to allow parallelism.
> 
> Following patch doesnt slow down dev_put() users and real scalability
> problems will surface and might be addressed.
> 

Here are typical timings (on current kernel, but on following example
netdev_wait_allrefs() doesnt wait at all, because my netdevice has no refs)

# time ip link add link eth3 address 00:1E:0B:8F:D0:D6 mv161 type macvlan

real    0m0.001s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.001s
# time ip link set mv161 up

real    0m0.001s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.001s
# time ip link set mv161 down

real    0m0.021s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.001s
# time ip link del mv161

real    0m0.022s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.001s

# time ip link add link eth3 address 00:1E:0B:8F:D0:D6 mv161 type macvlan

real    0m0.001s
user    0m0.001s
sys     0m0.001s
# time ip link set mv161 up

real    0m0.001s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.001s
# time ip link del mv161

real    0m0.036s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.001s

22 ms (or 36 ms) delay are also problematic if you want to dismantle 1.000.000 netdevices at once.
--
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