Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/RFT net-next 00/17] net: Convert neighbor tables to
 per-namespace
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc:     xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        nikita.leshchenko@oracle.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com,
        stephen@networkplumber.org, idosch@mellanox.com, jiri@mellanox.com,
        saeedm@mellanox.com, alex.aring@gmail.com,
        linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <28c30574-391c-b4bd-c337-51d3040d901a@gmail.com>
 <CAM_iQpW4-JkZY7jXx0Q1b907hQ85UOL1eXv2YHwSukb5L=apUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5021d874-8e99-6eba-f24b-4257c62d4457@gmail.com>
 <20180724.101405.797730329231867648.davem@davemloft.net>
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <36c41b45-ed97-1207-1b5e-32d3423b5567@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Jul 2018 12:23:07 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180724.101405.797730329231867648.davem@davemloft.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 7/24/18 11:14 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:14:01 -0600
> 
>> I get the impression there is no longer a strong resistance against
>> moving the tables to per namespace, but deciding what is the right
>> approach to handle backwards compatibility. Correct? Changing the
>> accounting is inevitably going to be noticeable to some use case(s), but
>> with sysctl settings it is a simple runtime update once the user knows
>> to make the change.
>>
>> neighbor entries round up to 512 byte allocations, so with the current
>> gc_thresh defaults (128/512/1024) 512k can be consumed. Using those
>> limits per namespace seems high which is why I suggested a per-namespace
>> default of (16/32/64) which amounts to 32k per namespace limit by
>> default. Open to other suggestions as well.
> 
> No objection from me about going to per-ns neigh tables.
> 
> About the defaults, I wonder if we can scale them to the amount of
> memory given to the ns or something like that?  I bet this will better
> match the intended use of the ns.
> 

Not sure how to do that. I am not aware of memory allocations to a
network namespace. As I understand it containers use cgroups to control
memory use, but I am not aware of any direct ties to namespace.