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
> nf_conntrack_gc_interval
> (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
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to