Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > 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 easily make the netns list rcu protected to address this issue. > If you're interested, I can prepare a patch tomorrow. That would be great if you manage do it. This was our initial idea with Daniel, but as I have a limited knowledge of RCU, I didn't manage to obtain an acceptable patch. One of the more problematic area is rtnl_unlock(). Benjamin > >> we can handle easily. >> >> > > -- B e n j a m i n T h e r y - BULL/DT/Open Software R&D http://www.bull.com _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers