From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 205C71FF09C for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2026 22:32:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 96EF2215FB; Mon, 19 Oct 2026 22:32:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Stefan Hanreich Subject: applied: [PATCH common/network v2 0/3] Performance improvements for applying VLAN / QinQ zones Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2026 22:31:53 +0200 Message-ID: <179244191103.2930950.6176325642690562997.b4-ty@b4> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20261019112640.181849-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> References: <20261019112640.181849-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1792441922334 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.477 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: 27637ZJYJNTJG3HO2YC44KGNWHAOPBA6 X-Message-ID-Hash: 27637ZJYJNTJG3HO2YC44KGNWHAOPBA6 X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 13:26:33 +0200, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > ## Problem > > When creating a VLAN / QinQ zone on a non VLAN-aware bridge, the SDN config > generation enters a code path that calls ip_link_details from PVE::IPRoute2 > repeatedly. This causes a severe slowdown when applying configurations with a > large amount of VNets. What exacerbated this problem was that, aside from > calling iproute2 twice, every vnet recalculated the bridge ports for its bridge > by iterating over all existing interfaces on the host which leads to a quadratic > increase in runtime once the SDN configuration had been applied once. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [pve-common] applied to git/pve-common.git (master) [1/2] iproute2: restructure get_physical_bridge_ports commit: 2f59faccaedd04183046054b4c7d5d225c9c7643 [2/2] iproute2: add helper for getting bridge port mappings commit: 2bf886a6302daf6ddc02b2234dd234c099142c7f [pve-network] applied to git/pve-network.git (master) [1/1] fix #7738: zones: use pre-computed bridge port list commit: 6e26da7b087d6b2c12f516fcf82b6cc8b8244e28