Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] TCP/IP Critical socket communication mechanism

[Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:42:45 +0100
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 08:30:23PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> > From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
> > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:39:37 -0800
> > 
> > > I think we need a global receive pool and per-socket send pools.
> > 
> > Mind telling everyone how you plan to make use of the global receive
> > pool when the allocation happens in the device driver and we have no
> > idea which socket the packet is destined for?  What should be done for
> 
> In theory one could use multiple receive queue on intelligent enough
> NIC with the NIC distingushing the sockets.
> 
> But that would be still a nasty "you need advanced hardware FOO to avoid
> subtle problem Y" case. Also it would require lots of  driver hacking.
> 
> And most NICs seem to have limits on the size of the socket tables for this, which
> means you would end up in a "only N sockets supported safely" situation,
> with N likely being quite small on common hardware.
> 
> I think the idea of the original poster was that just freeing non critical packets
> after a short time again would be good enough, but I'm a bit sceptical
> on that.
> 
> > I truly dislike these patches being discussed because they are a
> > complete hack, and admittedly don't even solve the problem fully.  I
> 
> I agree. 
> 
> > I think GFP_ATOMIC memory pools are more powerful than they are given
> > credit for.  There is nothing preventing the implementation of dynamic
> 
> Their main problem is that they are used too widely and in a lot
> of situations that aren't really critical.

Most of the use of GFP_ATOMIC is by stuff that could fail but can't
sleep waiting for memory. How about adding a GFP_NORMAL for allocations
while holding a lock.

#define GFP_NORMAL (__GFP_NOMEMALLOC)

Then get people to change the unneeded GFP_ATOMIC's to GFP_NORMAL in
places where the error paths are reasonable.