On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:37:26PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dich...@6wind.com> wrote:
> > Le 13/10/2016 à 22:43, Florian Westphal a écrit :
> > > (Or cause too many useless scans)
> > >
> > > Another idea worth trying might be to get rid of the max cap and
> > > instead break early in case too many jiffies expired.
> > >
> > > I don't want to add sysctl knobs for this unless absolutely needed; its
> > > already
> > > possible to 'force' eviction cycle by running 'conntrack -L'.
> > >
> > Sure, but this is not a "real" solution, just a workaround.
> > We need to find a way to deliver conntrack deletion events in a reasonable
> > delay, whatever the traffic on the machine is.
> Agree, but that depends on what 'reasonable' means and what kind of
> uneeded cpu churn we're willing to add.
> We can add a sysctl for this but we should use a low default to not do
> too much unneeded work.
> So what about your original patch, but only add
> (and also add instant-resched in case entire budget was consumed)?
I would prefer not to expose sysctl knobs, if we don't really know
what good default values are good, then we cannot expect our users to
know this for us.
I would go tune this in a way that this resembles to the previous