On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 10:47:46AM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Looking at your series, I don't think we are that far each other, see
> > below.
>
> Agree.
>
> > On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 11:08:16PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > > I've pushed a (not very much tested) version of gc overhaul
> > > to passive lookups based on expiry candidates, this removes
> > > the need for gc sequence counters.
> >
> > This patch ("netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: prefer sync gc to async
> > worker")
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/fwestphal/nf.git/commit/?h=nft_set_gc_query_08&id=edfeb02d758d6a96a3c1c9a483b69e43e5528e87
> >
> > goes in the same direction I would like to go with my incomplete patch
> > I posted. However:
> >
> > +static void nft_rbtree_commit(struct nft_set *set)
> > +{
> > + struct nft_rbtree *priv = nft_set_priv(set);
> > +
> > + if (time_after_eq(jiffies, priv->last_gc + nft_set_gc_interval(set)))
> > + nft_rbtree_gc(set);
> > +}
> >
> > I don't think this time_after_eq() to postpone element removal will
> > work. According to Stefano, you cannot store in the rbtree tree
> > duplicated elements.
>
> Note that in this series the on-demand part is still in place,
> there will be no duplicate elements.
Right.
> > Same problem already exists for this set backend
> > in case a transaction add and delete elements in the same batch.
> > Unless we maintain two copies. I understand you don't want to maintain
> > the two copies but then this time_after_eq() needs to go away.
>
> I can remove it, I don't think a full traversal (without doing
> anything) will be too costly.
OK, so what is your proposal to move on?
> > According to what I read it seems we agree on that, the only subtle
> > difference between your patch and my incomplete patch is this
> > time_after_eq().
>
> Yes, your patch gets rid of on-demand gc, I agree that we cannot
> postpone full run in that case.
Yes.
> > > Its vs. nf.git but really should be re-targetted to nf-next, I'll
> > > try to do this next week:
> > >
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/fwestphal/nf.git/log/?h=nft_set_gc_query_08
> >
> > Thanks. The gc sequence removal is a different topic we have been
> > discussing for a while.
>
> Yup. I wanted to explore how much work this is, and it turns
> out it gets a lot less ugly of we don't have to hande rbtree and
> its end elements.
OK.
> > Would it be possible to incorrect zap an entry
> > with the transaction semantics? I mean:
>
> Nope, should not happen.
>
> > #1 transaction to remove element k in set x y
> > #2 flush set x y (removes dead element k)
> > #3 add element k to set x y expires 3 minutes
> > #4 gc transaction freshly added new element
> >
> > In this case, no dead flag is set on in this new element k on so GC
> > transaction will skip it.
>
> The GC will do lookup, will find the element, will
> see its neither dead nor expired so it will be skipped.
>
> At least thats the idea, entries get zapped only
> if they are expired or dead (to handle packet path deletion).
Agreed, it is an extra lookup, but it is safer approach.
Thanks.
