[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YH0ZkeP1OVLeASpY@shredder.lan>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:48:01 +0300
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
petrm@...dia.com, mlxsw@...dia.com,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] nexthop: Restart nexthop dump based on last
dumped nexthop identifier
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 10:06:41AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 4/16/21 8:55 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
> >
> > Currently, a multi-part nexthop dump is restarted based on the number of
> > nexthops that have been dumped so far. This can result in a lot of
> > nexthops not being dumped when nexthops are simultaneously deleted:
> >
> > # ip nexthop | wc -l
> > 65536
> > # ip nexthop flush
> > Dump was interrupted and may be inconsistent.
> > Flushed 36040 nexthops
> > # ip nexthop | wc -l
> > 29496
> >
> > Instead, restart the dump based on the nexthop identifier (fixed number)
> > of the last successfully dumped nexthop:
> >
> > # ip nexthop | wc -l
> > 65536
> > # ip nexthop flush
> > Dump was interrupted and may be inconsistent.
> > Flushed 65536 nexthops
> > # ip nexthop | wc -l
> > 0
> >
> > Reported-by: Maksym Yaremchuk <maksymy@...dia.com>
> > Tested-by: Maksym Yaremchuk <maksymy@...dia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
> > ---
> > net/ipv4/nexthop.c | 14 ++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Thanks
>
> Any reason not to put this in -net with a Fixes tag?
I put it in the cover letter:
"Targeting at net-next since this use case never worked, the flow is
pretty obscure and such a large number of nexthops is unlikely to be
used in any real-world scenario."
Powered by blists - more mailing lists