> Il giorno 14 gen 2024, alle ore 06:30, David Wang <00107082@xxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > > At 2024-01-14 02:24:07, "Jozsef Kadlecsik" <kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024, David Wang wrote: >> >>> I tested the patch with code stressing swap->destroy->create->add 10000 >>> times, the performance regression still happens, and now it is >>> ip_set_destroy. (I pasted the test code at the end of this mail) > >>> >>> They all call wait_for_completion, which may sleep on something on >>> purpose, I guess... >> >> That's OK because ip_set_destroy() calls rcu_barrier() which is needed to >> handle flush in list type of sets. >> >> However, rcu_barrier() with call_rcu() together makes multiple destroys >> one after another slow. But rcu_barrier() is needed for list type of sets >> only and that can be handled separately. So could you test the patch >> below? According to my tests it is even a little bit faster than the >> original code before synchronize_rcu() was added to swap. > > Confirmed~! This patch does fix the performance regression in my case. > > Hope it can fix ale.crismani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx's original issue. > > > > Thanks~ > David Thanks for all the help on this, I'll try the patch tomorrow hopefully and will report back! best wishes, Ale
