On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Paolo Abeni <pab...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Thank you for the feedback. > > I tested your patch and in the above scenario I measure: > > real 0m0.017s > user 0m0.000s > sys 0m0.017s > > so it apparently works well for this case.
Thanks a lot for testing it! I will test it further. If it goes well I will send a formal patch with your Tested-by unless you object it. > > We could still have a storm of rtnl lock/unlock operations while > deleting a large tc tree with lot of filters, and I think we can reduce > them with bulk free, evenutally applying it to filters, too. > > That will also reduce the pressure on the rtnl lock when e.g. OVS H/W > offload pushes a lot of rules/sec. > > WDYT? > Why this is specific to tc filter? From what you are saying, we need to batch all TC operations (qdisc, filter and action) rather than just filter? In short term, I think batching rtnl lock/unlock is a good optimization, so I have no objection. For long term, I think we need to revise RTNL lock and probably move it down to each layer, but clearly it requires much more work. Thanks.
