[Devel] Re: net namespace plans for 2.6.25 (was Re: Pid namespaces problems)

[Pavel Emelyanov]

Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>>>  > Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>  >> Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>>>  >>> Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>>>  * the first one is the locking of the network namespace list by
>>>  >>>> rtnl_lock, so from the timer callback we can not browse the network
>>>  >>>> namespace list to check the age of the routes. It is a problem I would
>>>  >>>> like to talk with Denis if he has time
>>>  >>> From my point of view, the situation is clear. The timer should be
>>>  >>> per/namespace. The situation is completely different as one in IPv4.
>>>  >> We thought to make a timer per namespace for ipv6, but we are a little
>>>  >> afraid for the performances when there will be a lot of containers.
>>>  >> Anyway, we can do a timer per namespace and optimize that later. I will
>>>  >> cook a new patch to take into account that for the next week.
>>>  >
>>>  > IMHO not a problem. tcp_write_timer is per/socket timer. If this works
>>>  > efficiently, per/namespace one will work also.
>>>
>>> That's right, this is a good argument. By the way, the amount of work to 
>>> be done in the tcp_write_timer is perhaps smaller than the one done in 
>>> the ipv6 routing age check, no ? Anyway, I'm not against a timer per 
>>> namespace in this case, I already did a try before rolling back to a 
>>> for_each_net in the gc timer, that changes a little the API, but nothing 
>> We can easily make the netns list rcu protected to address this issue.
>> If you're interested, I can prepare a patch tomorrow.
> 
> Sure, I'm interested :)
> 
> Benjamin and I, we thought about using a rcu to avoid to use a timer per 
> namespace in ipv6 but we faced to the problem with rtnl_unlock function 
> when the network namespace is protected with the rtnl_lock/rtnl_unlock. 
> In the function rtnl_unlock (not the one in net-2.6 but the one which is 
> in netns49), there is loop, for_each_net, in this loop, we do 
> rtnl_unlock, call sk_data_ready and take the lock again. If we are in 
> rcu protected model, this loop will take a lock (one time just before 
> sk_data_ready and one time in the sk_data_ready function). As far as I 
> understand with rcu, we should not block inside a rcu_read_lock, right ?

Right. I will look at it. I think that if we protect the list with RCU
the rtnl_lock() protection will be not needed any longer.

Thanks,
Pavel

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers