Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Change since v1: use system_long_wq instead of normal system wq (suggested by > > Eric Dumazet). > > > > Nicholas is currently away; I would like to get his feedback on this one > > before it gets applied. > Thank you for the update. > With that patch, some events still have a delay > 2 minutes, which I think is > too much. Too bad, in my tests it was < 1 minute. > If I'm not wrong, the worst delay with this patch is: > 10 (GC_INTERVAL_MAX) + 0,001 + 5,001 + 5,002 + 5,003 + ... + 6,024 (= 5 secs + > 1024 mecs) Worst case is over 3 hours (assuming no eviction happened at all and we have one stale entry that needs the full scan). > Previously (in private discussions), you propose a algorithm which guarantee a > full table scan in a predefined delay. A "good" solution may have such guarantee. Now that this uses system_long_wq prolonged a long scan time might not be that bad anymore, so we might consider lowering the divisor and/or the max interval. However, I will not send a new iteration of this change since I don't know how to test this. Its easy to make the delay low, but it will come at additonal cpu cost. I have no idea where to make the tradeoff. Do you have a better idea? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
