On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 18:39:29 -0200 Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > + send = false; > > > + else > > > + send = true; > > > + > > > + ret = do_cmd(largc, largv, batch_size, msg_iov_index++, send); > > > > What happens if tc commands are interlaced in the file -- qdisc add, > > class add, filter add, then a delete, show, exec, etc.? Right now each > > command is handled one at a time so an add followed by a delete will > > work. Your proposed batching loop won't work for this case as some > > commands are executed when that line is reached and others are batched > > for later send. Not all of the tc commands need to be batched in a > > single message so perhaps those commands cause the queue to be flushed > > (ie, message sent), then that command is executed and you start the > > batching over. > > > > Further, I really think the batching can be done without the global > > variables and without the command handlers knowing it is batching or > > part of an iov. e.g., in the case of batching try having the commands > > malloc the request buffer and return the pointer back to this loop in > > which case this loop calls rtnl_talk_msg and frees the buffers. > > Sounds like the batching is being done at the wrong level. If it was > done by rtnl_talk(), it should be easier. > We can keep rtnl_talk() for previous users and make rtnl_talk_msg() do > the batching, mostly independent of which kind of msg it it. > > As you need to inform it that it was the last entry, that may be > detected with feof(stdin). Just add a 'bool flush' parameter to it. > rtnl_talk_msg(...., flush=feof(stdin)); > > Next step then would be to add a memory manager layer to it, so > libnetlink wouldn't need to copy the messages but recycle pointers: > rtnl_get_msgbuf(): returns a buffer that one can use to fill in the > msg and use with rtnl_talk_msg() > and the free is done by libnetlink itself when the message is > finally sent, so no need to keep track of what one needs to free or > can reuse. What about using sendmmsg instead? That woudl allow sending multiple messages in one syscall.
