On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:46:48 +0100
Florian Westphal <f...@strlen.de> wrote:
> Eyal Birger <eyal.bir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for taking so long to respond.
> > On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 14:15:09 +0100
> > Florian Westphal <f...@strlen.de> wrote:
> > > Steffen Klassert <steffen.klass...@secunet.com> wrote:
> > > > I gave the patch a quick try, but still I get this:
> > > >
> > > > unregister_netdevice: waiting for dummy1 to become free. Usage
> > > > count = 2
> > >
> > > Was that with Eyals setup or the bridge one I posted?
> > >
> > > If it was Eyals setup, its possible the patch missed hookup
> > > to whatever tunnel infra is used (the setup I used has ipip
> > > tunnel, everything is ipv4).
> > >
> > Thanks!
> > Indeed the setup I'm testing uses ip6_tunnel.
> > I have tested a fix in the spirit of the patch and it looks valid
> > for ip6_tunnel as well.
> > It looks though that this change would need to be added to any
> > tunnel device using dst_cache (vxlan, geneve, gre, ...).
> Yes. Meanwhile I tested your patch and it works for me too.
> As your patch is shorter and ipv4/ipv6 seem to take care of refcount
> put just fine I think your patch is the right way to go.
> The xfrm_dst size incrase isn't much of a big deal, there is ample of
> padding at the end so it will still be allocated from same slab.
> We could reduce num_pols and num_xfrms to u8, which creates a 16 bit
> hole, then store the cpu number instead of a list pointer.
> This would limit growth to 16 instead of 24.
> But, as I said, i do not think its a big deal.
> > I'm wondering - non-xfrm dsts are already correctly invalidated,
> > so do you think it makes sense to invalidate caches for devices that
> > have no xfrm dsts? or maybe I didn't understand the suggestion?
> See above, I think your patch is the way to go.
Ok, thanks. Will submit a formal patch.