[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC/RFT net-next 00/17] net: Convert neighbor tables to per-namespace
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:14 AM David Ahern <> wrote:
> On 7/19/18 11:12 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:16 AM David Ahern <> wrote:
> >>
> >> Chatting with Nikolay about this and he brought up a good corollary - ip
> >> fragmentation. It really is a similar problem in that memory is consumed
> >> as a result of packets received from an external entity. The ipfrag
> >> sysctls are per namespace with a limit that non-init_net namespaces can
> >> not set high_thresh > the current value of init_net. Potential memory
> >> consumed by fragments scales with the number of namespaces which is the
> >> primary concern with making neighbor tables per namespace.
> >
> > Nothing new, already discussed:
> >
> >
> > :)
> >
> Neighbor tables, bridge fdbs, vxlan fdbs and ip fragments all consume
> local memory resources due to received packets. bridge and vxlan fdb's
> are fairly straightforward analogs to neighbor entries; they are per
> device with no limits on the number of entries. Fragments have memory
> limits per namespace. So neighbor tables are the only ones with this
> strict limitation and concern on memory consumption.
> 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.

This question definitely should go to Eric Biederman who was against
my proposal.

Let's add Eric into CC.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-25 00:10    [W:0.097 / U:3.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site