All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce jiffies_32 and related compare functions
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:47:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <457E2642.2000103@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061211.173100.74720551.davem@davemloft.net>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2414 bytes --]

David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:58:06 +0100
> 
>> Some subsystems dont need more than 32bits timestamps.
>>
>> See for example net/ipv4/inetpeer.c and include/net/tcp.h :
>> #define tcp_time_stamp            ((__u32)(jiffies))
>>
>>
>> Because most timeouts should work with 'normal jiffies' that are 32bits on 
>> 32bits platforms, it makes sense to be able to use only 32bits to store them 
>> and not 64 bits, to save ram.
>>
>> This patch introduces jiffies_32, and related comparison functions 
>> time_after32(), time_before32(), time_after_eq32() and time_before_eq32().
>>
>> I plan to use this infrastructure in network code for example (struct 
>> dst_entry comes to mind).
> 
> The TCP case is because the protocol limits the size of
> the timestamp we can store in the TCP Timestamp option.
> 
> Otherwise we would use the full 64-bit jiffies timestamp,
> in order to have a larger window of values which would not
> overflow.
> 
> Since there is no protocol limitation involved in cases
> such as dst_entry, I think we should keep it at 64-bits
> on 64-bit platforms to make the wrap-around window as
> large as possible.
> 
> I really don't see any reason to make these changes.  Yes,
> you'd save some space, but one of the chief advantages of
> 64-bit is that we get larger jiffies value windows.  If
> that has zero value, as your intended changes imply, then
> we shouldn't need the default 64-bit jiffies either, by
> implication.

Well, just to have similar functions to manipulate jiffies.

We already know that using a 32bits dtime in struct inet_peer permited an 
object size of 64 bytes instead of 128 bytes (on 64bits platforms)

On one machine (running linux-2.6.16) I have :

# grep peer /proc/slabinfo
inet_peer_cache    65972  86220    128   30    1 : tunables  120   60    8 : 
slabdata   2874   2874    262

(So the 128 bytes -> 64 bytes is going to save 1437 pages of memory)

# grep dst /proc/slabinfo
ip_dst_cache      1765818 2077380    320   12    1 : tunables   54   27    8 : 
slabdata 173115 173115     39

(So saving 4*4 bytes per dst might save 32 MB of ram).
I doubt being able to extend the expiration of a dst above 2^32 ticks (49 days 
if HZ=1000, 198 days if HZ=250) is worth the ram wastage.

Dont you prefer to be able to apply this patch for example ?

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>

[-- Attachment #2: inetpeer.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 770 bytes --]

--- linux/net/ipv4/inetpeer.c.orig	2006-12-12 05:25:42.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-ed/net/ipv4/inetpeer.c	2006-12-12 05:29:22.000000000 +0100
@@ -338,8 +338,7 @@ static int cleanup_once(unsigned long tt
 	spin_lock_bh(&inet_peer_unused_lock);
 	p = inet_peer_unused_head;
 	if (p != NULL) {
-		__u32 delta = (__u32)jiffies - p->dtime;
-		if (delta < ttl) {
+		if (time_after32(p->dtime + ttl, jiffies_32)) {
 			/* Do not prune fresh entries. */
 			spin_unlock_bh(&inet_peer_unused_lock);
 			return -1;
@@ -466,7 +465,7 @@ void inet_putpeer(struct inet_peer *p)
 		p->unused_next = NULL;
 		*inet_peer_unused_tailp = p;
 		inet_peer_unused_tailp = &p->unused_next;
-		p->dtime = (__u32)jiffies;
+		p->dtime = jiffies_32;
 	}
 	spin_unlock_bh(&inet_peer_unused_lock);
 }

  reply	other threads:[~2006-12-12  3:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-12-11 20:27 + constify-pipe_buf_operations.patch added to -mm tree akpm
2006-12-11 21:23 ` [PATCH] reorder struct pipe_buf_operations Eric Dumazet
2006-12-11 22:58   ` [PATCH] Introduce jiffies_32 and related compare functions Eric Dumazet
2006-12-12  1:31     ` David Miller
2006-12-12  3:47       ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2006-12-12  3:57         ` David Miller
2006-12-12  4:09           ` Eric Dumazet
2006-12-12  4:27             ` David Miller
2006-12-12  6:56               ` Eric Dumazet
2006-12-12  8:00                 ` David Miller

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=457E2642.2000103@cosmosbay.com \
    --to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@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.