Daniel Lezcano wrote: > 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. > > Sure, I'm interested :) > > Benjamin and I, we thought about using a rcu to avoid to use a timer per > namespace in ipv6 but we faced to the problem with rtnl_unlock function > when the network namespace is protected with the rtnl_lock/rtnl_unlock. > In the function rtnl_unlock (not the one in net-2.6 but the one which is > in netns49), there is loop, for_each_net, in this loop, we do > rtnl_unlock, call sk_data_ready and take the lock again. If we are in > rcu protected model, this loop will take a lock (one time just before > sk_data_ready and one time in the sk_data_ready function). As far as I > understand with rcu, we should not block inside a rcu_read_lock, right ? Right. I will look at it. I think that if we protect the list with RCU the rtnl_lock() protection will be not needed any longer. Thanks, Pavel _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers