Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/3] net: hash uncached route lists by device

[Chris Arges]

On 2026-09-18 04:19:34, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> From: Chris Arges <carges@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 19:38:40 -0500
> > On 2026-09-17 22:10:22, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > > From: Chris J Arges <carges@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 14:38:21 -0500
> > > > We have observed hung tasks blocked on rtnl_mutex while network namespaces
> > > > were being removed. The namespaces contained many network devices, and the
> > > > host had accumulated a large population of entries on the global per-CPU
> > > > uncached route lists. A perf profile collected during one incident
> > > > attributed most of the cleanup worker's samples to rt_flush_dev():
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 99.92% kworker/u384:3-  worker_thread
> > > >   `-88.71% process_one_work
> > > >       `-81.02% cleanup_net
> > > >           `-81.00% unregister_netdevice_many_notify
> > > >               `-79.42% notifier_call_chain
> > > >                   `-78.05% fib_netdev_event
> > > >                       `-77.92% rt_flush_dev
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > For each device, rt_flush_dev() visits every possible CPU and scans the
> > > > global uncached route population while its caller holds rtnl_mutex. If N is
> > > > the number of devices, C the number of possible CPUs, and R the number of
> > > > uncached routes, the cost is O(N * (C + R)).
> > > > 
> > > > During namespace cleanup, other processes that issue RTNETLINK operations
> > > > requiring the RTNL lock can stall until cleanup releases the lock.
> > > > 
> > > > A minimal reproducer is available here:
> > > > https://github.com/arges/linux-reproducers/tree/main/rtnl-flush-storm
> > > > 
> > > > This series replaces each per-CPU uncached route list with a hash table
> > > > using the network device as its key. Each table uses 64 buckets.
> > > 
> > > This sounds a bit overkill.  Also, this series still leaves
> > > O(N * C) loops.
> > > 
> > > Given unregistering a single device is less common than
> > > destroying netns, I think the right approach should be to
> > > make the route flush once in cleanup_net() + outside RTNL.
> > > 
> > > Could you try this change ? (only compile-tested)
> > > 
> > Excellent, I'll test this and report back.
> 
> I found a pre-existing issue, which affects the previous
> diff, so on top of it, please apply this patch
> 
>   https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260918041439.2575935-1-kuniyu@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> 
> and this diff :
> 
> ---8<---
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
> index d35b66b33bbc..c12e20e07749 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/route.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/route.c
> @@ -1567,12 +1567,13 @@ void rt_add_uncached_list(struct rtable *rt)
>  {
>  	struct uncached_list *ul = raw_cpu_ptr(&rt_uncached_list);
>  
> +	rt->dst.rt_uncached_list = ul;
> +
>  	spin_lock_bh(&ul->lock);
>  
>  	if (!check_net(dst_dev_net_rcu(&rt->dst))) {
>  		rt_replace_uncached_list(rt);
>  	} else {
> -		rt->dst.rt_uncached_list = ul;
>  		list_add_tail(&rt->dst.rt_uncached, &ul->head);
>  	}
>  
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
> index 6cffe8440b44..f22793abbbb8 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
> @@ -155,12 +155,13 @@ void rt6_uncached_list_add(struct rt6_info *rt)
>  {
>  	struct uncached_list *ul = raw_cpu_ptr(&rt6_uncached_list);
>  
> +	rt->dst.rt_uncached_list = ul;
> +
>  	spin_lock_bh(&ul->lock);
>  
>  	if (!check_net(dst_dev_net_rcu(&rt->dst))) {
>  		rt6_uncached_list_replace(rt);
>  	} else {
> -		rt->dst.rt_uncached_list = ul;
>  		list_add_tail(&rt->dst.rt_uncached, &ul->head);
>  	}
>  
> ---8<---

Kuniyuki,

I was able to test this diff, the previous diff you sent plus the fixup
mentioned above. I was able to confirm even greater reduction in contention
as measured by how much latency an unrelated process takes when waiting for
cleanup_net to complete. This makes sense since we don't even need to hold the
lock when processing those routing entries with your patch.

Some rough average latency numbers with 36 devices, 160k routes, 8 vCPUs:
- main: 137ms
- my hashing proposal: 13ms
- your patchset: 1.8ms

I'd be happy to retest any proposed patches.

Thanks,
--chris