All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] folding socket->wq into struct socket
Date: Sun, 5 May 2019 18:59:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190505175943.GC23075@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190505.100421.2250762717881638194.davem@davemloft.net>

On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 10:04:21AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 17:32:23 +0100
> 
> > it appears that we might take freeing the socket itself to the
> > RCU-delayed part, along with socket->wq.  And doing that has
> > an interesting benefit - the only reason to do two separate
> > allocation disappears.
> 
> I'm pretty sure we looked into RCU freeing the socket in the
> past but ended up not doing so.
> 
> I think it had to do with the latency in releasing sock related
> objects.
> 
> However, I might be confusing "struct socket" with "struct sock"

Erm...  the only object with changed release time is the memory
occupied by struct sock_alloc.  Currently:
final iput of socket
	schedule RCU-delayed kfree() of socket->wq
	kfree() of socket
With this change:
final iput of socket
	schedule RCU-delayed kfree() of coallocated socket and socket->wq

So it would have to be a workload where tons of sockets are created and
torn down, where RCU-delayed freeing of socket_wq is an inevitable evil,
but freeing struct socket_alloc itself must be done immediately, to
reduce the memory pressure.  Or am I misreading you?

  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-05 17:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-02 16:32 [RFC] folding socket->wq into struct socket Al Viro
2019-05-05 17:04 ` David Miller
2019-05-05 17:59   ` Al Viro [this message]
2019-05-05 18:25     ` David Miller
2019-05-16  0:02       ` Eric Dumazet

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=20190505175943.GC23075@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.