Re: [PATCHv4 iproute2 2/2] lib/libnetlink: update rtnl_talk to support malloc buff at run time
From: Hangbin Liu <hidden>
Date: 2017-10-11 10:40:32
Hi Stephen, On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:47:43AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
Agreed. Current code is based on the assumption that we can estimate the maximum reply length in advance and the reason for this series is that this assumption turned out to be wrong. I'm afraid that if we replace it by an assumption that we can estimate the maximum reply length for most requests with only few exceptions, it's only matter of time for us to be proven wrong again. Michal KubecekFor query responses, yes the response may be large. But for the common cases of add address or add route, the response should just be ack or error.
I tried to list 10 NIC links with ip cmd.
With unpatched ip cmd:
# time for i in `seq 100000`; do ip link show &> /dev/null; done
real 5m14.591s
user 0m58.134s
sys 4m21.104s
With patched ip cmd:
# time for i in `seq 100000`; do ./ip link show &> /dev/null; done
real 4m48.579s
user 0m8.570s
sys 4m43.460s
Then tested add 99,00 address via script
# cat add_addr.sh
#!/bin/bash
dev=$1
for vid in $(seq 99); do
ip link add link $dev name ${dev}.$vid type vlan id $vid
ip link set ${dev}.$vid up
for n in $(seq 100); do
ip addr add 20$vid::$n dev ${dev}.$vid
done
done
with unpatched ip cmd:
# time ./add_addr.sh p7p1
real 0m13.456s
user 0m2.551s
sys 0m11.106s
With patched ip cmd:
# time ./add_addr.sh p7p1
real 0m13.700s
user 0m2.827s
sys 0m11.148s
The result don't have much difference and looks good. And I wonder if adding
thousands of address is a common case.
Thanks
Hangbin