From: nicolas prochazka <prochazka.nicolas@gmail.com>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: multiple wireguard interface and kworker ressources
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:52:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADdae-h6BO4=tGU=QrYHWr4iW7MgMzk2ukw9jes33WEoxAF1Gw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9rQk=wv=X+KqF-NXe1n=Pyj6L1JaZ-oBoLeCV+dxoK1kw@mail.gmail.com>
hello,
after create of wg interface, kworker thread does not return to a
normal state in my case,
kernel thread continues to consume a lot of cpu .
I must delete wireguard interface to kworker decrease.
Nicolas
2017-06-13 23:47 GMT+02:00 Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> It looks to me like some resources are indeed expended in adding those
> interfaces. Not that much that would be problematic -- are you seeing
> a problematic case? -- but still a non-trivial amount.
>
> I tracked it down to WireGuard's instantiation of xt_hashlimit, which
> does some ugly vmalloc, and it's call into the power state
> notification system, which uses a naive O(n) algorithm for insertion.
> I might have a way of amortizing on module insertion, which would
> speed things up. But I wonder -- what is the practical detriment of
> spending a few extra cycles on `ip link add`? What's your use case
> where this would actually be a problem?
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-14 7:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-13 12:38 nicolas prochazka
2017-06-13 12:48 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2017-06-13 14:55 ` nicolas prochazka
2017-06-13 21:47 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2017-06-14 7:52 ` nicolas prochazka [this message]
2017-06-14 13:50 ` nicolas prochazka
2017-06-14 14:15 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2017-06-14 18:08 ` nicolas prochazka
2017-06-21 13:54 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2017-06-14 14:05 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2017-06-14 14:13 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2017-06-14 14:17 ` nicolas prochazka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CADdae-h6BO4=tGU=QrYHWr4iW7MgMzk2ukw9jes33WEoxAF1Gw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=prochazka.nicolas@gmail.com \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).