Re: [PATCH 4/4] udp: memory accounting in IPv4

[Hideo AOKI <haoki@redhat.com>]

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Herbert Xu a écrit :
>> However, I'm still a little concerned about the effect of two more
>> atomic op's per packet that we're adding here.  Hang on a sec, that
>> should've been Dave's line since atomic ops are cheap on x86 :)
>>
>> But seriously, it's not so much that we have two more atomic op's
>> per packet, but we have two more writes to a single global counter
>> for each packet.  This is going to really suck on SMP.
>>
>> So what I'd like to see is a scheme that's similar to sk_forward_alloc.
>> The idea is that each socket allocates memory using mem_schedule and
>> then stores it in sk_forward_alloc.  Each packet then only has to
>> add to/subtract from sk_forward_alloc.
>>
>> There is one big problem with this though, UDP is not serialised like
>> TCP.  So you can't just use sk_forward_alloc since it's not an atomic_t.
>>
>> We'll need to think about this one a bit more.
> 
> I agree adding yet another atomics ops is a big problem.
> 
> Another idea, coupled with recent work on percpu storage done by
> Christoph Lameter, would be to use kind of a percpu_counter :
> 
> We dont really need strong and precise memory accounting (UDP , but TCP
> as well), just some kind of limit to avoid memory to be too much used.
> 
> That is, updating a percpu variable, and doing some updates to a global
> counter only when this percpu variable escapes from a given range.
> 
> Lot of contended cache lines could benefit from this relaxing (count of
> sockets...)
> 
> I would wait first that Christoph work is done, so that we dont need
> atomic ops on local cpu storage (and no need to disable preemption too).

Thank you for your comments.
I understood your concern of atomic operations.

Let me try to use sk_forward_alloc at first, while percpu storage
is an interesting idea.

Many thanks,
Hideo

-- 
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.