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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190725204230.12229-1-brodie.greenfield@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
 <20190725204230.12229-2-brodie.greenfield@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
 <e5606cf7-6848-1109-6cbe-63d94868ed65@cumulusnetworks.com> <6e8c51a0-cd34-e14a-7661-6fa5945f278b@cumulusnetworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <6e8c51a0-cd34-e14a-7661-6fa5945f278b@cumulusnetworks.com>
From:   Stephen Suryaputra <ssuryaextr@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 Jul 2019 13:03:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHapkUhEVGFRH=-R+obSUMh6rSVxZmEC9GQSnvUkvuj6dwVxjA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ipmr: Make cache queue length configurable
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     Brodie Greenfield <brodie.greenfield@alliedtelesis.co.nz>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz,
        luuk.paulussen@alliedtelesis.co.nz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 7:18 AM Nikolay Aleksandrov
<nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:

> > You've said it yourself - it has linear traversal time, but doesn't this patch allow any netns on the
> > system to increase its limit to any value, thus possibly affecting others ?
> > Though the socket limit will kick in at some point. I think that's where David
> > was going with his suggestion back in 2018:
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg514543.html
> >
> > If we add this sysctl now, we'll be stuck with it. I'd prefer David's suggestion
> > so we can rely only on the receive queue queue limit which is already configurable.
> > We still need to be careful with the defaults though, the NOCACHE entry is 128 bytes
> > and with the skb overhead currently on my setup we end up at about 277 entries default limit.
>
> I mean that people might be surprised if they increased that limit by default, that's the
> only problem I'm not sure how to handle. Maybe we need some hard limit anyway.
> Have you done any tests what value works for your setup ?

FYI: for ours, it is 2048.