On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 03:58:25PM +0200, Neels Hofmeyr wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 12:32:38AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > Yes, a simple reproducer would be good to have.
>
> ack, will send one soon.
> How does that typically look, a shell script?
That would be great, yes.
> > You are focusing on the "set up / tear down thousands of GTP tunnels"
> > problems in this email, correct?
>
> A bit of context, the general interest came about from my job, working on
> osmo-upf and osmo-hnbgw, but this is now shifting to a personal interest that
> isn't necessarily backed by my employer.
>
> I think the most narrow focus is this:
>
> compare time taken adding
> - the first chain
> to
> - the 1001st chain
> to
> - the 10001st chain.
>
> My experience shows that each additional chain takes longer than the one
> before.
I made this script, and I don't observe any variation in the numbers:
nft add table x
for ((i=0;i<4000;i++))
do
time nft add chain x y$i
done
maybe your reproducer requires a map?
> Likewise, deleting one of 10000 chains takes significantly longer than deleting
> one of 1000 chains, which in turn takes significantly longer than deleting one
> of 10 chains in a table.
>
> I suspect inefficiency in the very basic handling of chains per se, and not in
> particular my type of chain (rewriting UDP packets). But for reference of what
> kinds of chains I am using, you can look at this link:
> > > https://gitea.osmocom.org/cellular-infrastructure/osmo-upf/src/commit/a21bcec358a5147deb15d156700279f52386a7d7/tests/nft-rule.vty
>
> My aim here is a general approach: how efficient does nftables work for large
> numbers of chains and rules?
>
> - could we scale down use of temporary memory?
> - could we more efficiently free temporary memory?
> - could we do the freeing maintenance work *after* returning the results?
Shrinking memory consumption is possible, I suspect you see a frequent
cache fill up then tear down with your pattern.
> And the most important question I am asking here is: are things like this
> already known issues or are we opening a new angle to things?
>
> > In you scenario: Is there a nft_run_cmd_from_buffer() call for each
> > new chain?
>
> I tried batching of something like 400 chain additions, but it does not make
> any significant difference.
>
> > > Then I can also retrieve the counters in batches of 100, which might be more
> > > efficient and better to coordinate with concurrent tasks.
> >
> > This means, your existing approach is not batching updates?
>
> Reconsidering, I'd rather not mix this aspect into this mail thread, my main
> interest is in the quite general performance considerations above. (This is
> referring to another use case, sorry for the confusion. That use case is about
> retrieving counters from all chains in a rule set efficiently. fetching all at
> once is slow, so fetching in batches might help. But let's ignore that aspect
> for now).
OK.
> > > - can we fix that? Is there some memory leak / unnecessary blow up happening
> > > that causes this apparent factor 1000 in effort?
> >
> > tests regularly run valgrind and ASAN to ensure no memleaks.
>
> Sorry, wrong word, I meant not really a memleak proper, but a sort of overkill
> use of memory: given that all temporary allocations are properly cleaned up
> later, it can still be a sort of "leak" if the nr of those allocations
> explodes. For example, a rapid loop could maybe use a single allocation all
> over instead of one per iteration, or some data tree need not necessarily be
> copied for just some read-only access... that kind of thing in general.
Set elements are particularly consuming more memory, it gets worse
with maps.
If this is a general concern about memory consumption, then I can take
a look at this globally, running existing tests and look at memory
consumption numbers.
I already have a few out-of-tree patches I need to revisit to shrink
memory consumption.
