[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140820055855.GB5579@hostway.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:58:55 -0700
From: Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: net_ns cleanup / RCU overhead
Hello!
In trying to figure out what happened to a box running lots of vsftpd
since we deployed a CONFIG_NET_NS=y kernel to it, we found that the
(wall) time needed for cleanup_net() to complete, even on an idle box,
can be quite long:
#!/bin/bash
ip netns delete test >&/dev/null
while ip netns add test; do
echo hi
ip netns delete test
done
On my desktop and typical hosts, this prints at only around 4 or 6 per
second. While this is happening, "vmstat 1" reports 100% idle, and there
there are D-state processes with stacks similar to:
30566 [kworker/u16:1] D wait_rcu_gp+0x48, synchronize_sched+0x2f, cleanup_net+0xdb, process_one_work+0x175, worker_thread+0x119, kthread+0xbb, ret_from_fork+0x7c, 0xffffffffffffffff
32220 ip D copy_net_ns+0x68, create_new_namespaces+0xfc, unshare_nsproxy_namespaces+0x66, SyS_unshare+0x159, system_call_fastpath+0x16, 0xffffffffffffffff
copy_net_ns() is waiting on net_mutex which is held by cleanup_net().
vsftpd uses CLONE_NEWNET to set up privsep processes. There is a comment
about it being really slow before 2.6.35 (it avoids CLONE_NEWNET in that
case). I didn't find anything that makes 2.6.35 any faster, but on Debian
2.6.36-5-amd64, I notice it does seem to be a bit faster than 3.2, 3.10,
3.16, though still not anything I'd ever want to rely on per connection.
C implementation of the above: http://0x.ca/sim/ref/tools/netnsloop.c
Kernel stack "top": http://0x.ca/sim/ref/tools/pstack
What's going on here?
Simon-
--
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