At 2024-01-11 16:25:46, "Jozsef Kadlecsik" <kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>
>Could you check that the patch below fixes the performance regression?
>Instead of waiting for the RCU grace period at swapping, call_rcu() is
>used at destroying the set.
Got a compiler error:
net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c: In function ‘ip_set_destroy_set_rcu’:
net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c:1017:9: error: implicit declaration of function ‘ip_set_destroy_set’; did you mean ‘ip_set_destroy_set_rcu’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
1017 | ip_set_destroy_set(set);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| ip_set_destroy_set_rcu
net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c: At top level:
net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c:1183:1: warning: conflicting types for ‘ip_set_destroy_set’; have ‘void(struct ip_set *)’
1183 | ip_set_destroy_set(struct ip_set *set)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c:1183:1: error: static declaration of ‘ip_set_destroy_set’ follows non-static declaration
I move the declaration of ip_set_destroy_set_rcu, make sure it is after the declaration of ip_set_destroy_set,
With this path, the performance degradation of ipset_swap is gone, but my test only stress ipset_swap, not a swap/destroy sequence.
I will adjust my code to stress a full swap/destroy/create/add sequence, and update later.
Thanks
David
