Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> Denis V. Lunev wrote: >>>> Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> >>>>> * the first one is the locking of the network namespace list by >>>>> rtnl_lock, so from the timer callback we can not browse the network >>>>> namespace list to check the age of the routes. It is a problem I would >>>>> like to talk with Denis if he has time >>>> From my point of view, the situation is clear. The timer should be >>>> per/namespace. The situation is completely different as one in IPv4. >>> We thought to make a timer per namespace for ipv6, but we are a little >>> afraid for the performances when there will be a lot of containers. >>> Anyway, we can do a timer per namespace and optimize that later. I will >>> cook a new patch to take into account that for the next week. >> >> IMHO not a problem. tcp_write_timer is per/socket timer. If this works >> efficiently, per/namespace one will work also. > > That's right, this is a good argument. By the way, the amount of work to > be done in the tcp_write_timer is perhaps smaller than the one done in > the ipv6 routing age check, no ? Anyway, I'm not against a timer per > namespace in this case, I already did a try before rolling back to a > for_each_net in the gc timer, that changes a little the API, but nothing > we can handle easily. > > I think you are wrong. The amount of work to "purge" all namespaces is a constant in the IPv6 case, where we'll have per/namespace cache. So, for a multiple timers model only multiple timer overhead counts and this overhead is small, as timer list is efficient. This argument does not for for IPv4 case, where there is a one big cache for all namespaces. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
