From: Karl Hiramoto <karl@hiramoto.org>
To: linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] br2684 testing needed for packet loss and performance
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:38:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A97B3A9.6040103@hiramoto.org> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 647 bytes --]
Hi,
Anyone care to test or comment on these patches? I've attached
versions for 2.6.28 and 2.6.30.
Note I've done all my tests without any QOS settings. I start my link
by something like "br2684ctl -c 0 -e 0 -p 1 -b -a 8.32"
Without these patches, if you open one or many file transfers, then also
do a ping you will notice heavy packet loss. This packet loss is being
caused by the call to dev_kfree_skb(skb);
With these patches my max throughput drops 20% to 40% or so on a 24
Mbps ADSL2+ line, but no longer have packet loss. On a 15Mbps (and
slower) line, I no longer see packet loss with these patches.
Thanks
--
Karl
[-- Attachment #2: linux-2.6.28.br2684.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2781 bytes --]
Signed-off-by: Karl Hiramoto <karl@hiramoto.org>
--- linux-2.6.28.9.orig/net/atm/br2684.c 2009-03-23 22:55:52.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.28.9/net/atm/br2684.c 2009-08-28 12:00:43.000000000 +0200
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ struct br2684_vcc {
struct net_device *device;
/* keep old push, pop functions for chaining */
void (*old_push) (struct atm_vcc * vcc, struct sk_buff * skb);
- /* void (*old_pop)(struct atm_vcc *vcc, struct sk_buff *skb); */
+ void (*old_pop)(struct atm_vcc *vcc, struct sk_buff *skb);
enum br2684_encaps encaps;
struct list_head brvccs;
#ifdef CONFIG_ATM_BR2684_IPFILTER
@@ -143,6 +143,23 @@ static struct net_device *br2684_find_de
return NULL;
}
+/* chained vcc->pop function. Check if we should wake the netif_queue */
+static void br2684_pop(struct atm_vcc *vcc, struct sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ struct br2684_vcc *brvcc = BR2684_VCC(vcc);
+ struct net_device *net_dev = brvcc->device;
+
+ pr_debug("br2684_pop(vcc %p ; net_dev %p )\n", vcc, net_dev);
+ brvcc->old_pop(vcc, skb);
+
+ if (!net_dev)
+ return;
+
+ if (atm_may_send(vcc, 0)) {
+ netif_wake_queue(net_dev);
+ }
+}
+
/*
* Send a packet out a particular vcc. Not to useful right now, but paves
* the way for multiple vcc's per itf. Returns true if we can send,
@@ -200,20 +217,22 @@ static int br2684_xmit_vcc(struct sk_buf
ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc = atmvcc = brvcc->atmvcc;
pr_debug("atm_skb(%p)->vcc(%p)->dev(%p)\n", skb, atmvcc, atmvcc->dev);
- if (!atm_may_send(atmvcc, skb->truesize)) {
- /*
- * We free this here for now, because we cannot know in a higher
- * layer whether the skb pointer it supplied wasn't freed yet.
- * Now, it always is.
- */
- dev_kfree_skb(skb);
- return 0;
- }
+
atomic_add(skb->truesize, &sk_atm(atmvcc)->sk_wmem_alloc);
ATM_SKB(skb)->atm_options = atmvcc->atm_options;
brdev->stats.tx_packets++;
brdev->stats.tx_bytes += skb->len;
atmvcc->send(atmvcc, skb);
+
+ if (!atm_may_send(atmvcc, 0)) {
+ netif_stop_queue(brvcc->device);
+ barrier();
+ /* check for race with br26864_pop*/
+ if (atm_may_send(atmvcc, 0)) {
+ netif_start_queue(brvcc->device);
+ }
+ }
+
return 1;
}
@@ -509,8 +528,10 @@ static int br2684_regvcc(struct atm_vcc
atmvcc->user_back = brvcc;
brvcc->encaps = (enum br2684_encaps)be.encaps;
brvcc->old_push = atmvcc->push;
+ brvcc->old_pop = atmvcc->pop;
barrier();
atmvcc->push = br2684_push;
+ atmvcc->pop = br2684_pop;
rq = &sk_atm(atmvcc)->sk_receive_queue;
@@ -621,6 +642,8 @@ static int br2684_create(void __user * a
write_lock_irq(&devs_lock);
brdev->payload = payload;
+ netif_start_queue(netdev);
+
brdev->number = list_empty(&br2684_devs) ? 1 :
BRPRIV(list_entry_brdev(br2684_devs.prev))->number + 1;
list_add_tail(&brdev->br2684_devs, &br2684_devs);
[-- Attachment #3: linux-2.6.30.br2684.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2447 bytes --]
Signed-off-by: Karl Hiramoto <karl@hiramoto.org>
--- /usr/src/linux-2.6.30.5/net/atm/br2684.c 2009-06-10 05:05:27.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.30.5/net/atm/br2684.c 2009-08-28 12:02:41.000000000 +0200
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ struct br2684_vcc {
struct net_device *device;
/* keep old push, pop functions for chaining */
void (*old_push) (struct atm_vcc * vcc, struct sk_buff * skb);
- /* void (*old_pop)(struct atm_vcc *vcc, struct sk_buff *skb); */
+ void (*old_pop)(struct atm_vcc *vcc, struct sk_buff *skb);
enum br2684_encaps encaps;
struct list_head brvccs;
#ifdef CONFIG_ATM_BR2684_IPFILTER
@@ -142,6 +142,22 @@ static struct net_device *br2684_find_de
return NULL;
}
+/* chained vcc->pop function. Check if we should wake the netif_queue */
+static void br2684_pop(struct atm_vcc *vcc, struct sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ struct br2684_vcc *brvcc = BR2684_VCC(vcc);
+ struct net_device *net_dev = skb->dev;
+
+ pr_debug("br2684_pop(vcc %p ; net_dev %p )\n", vcc, net_dev);
+ brvcc->old_pop(vcc, skb);
+
+ if (!net_dev)
+ return;
+
+ if (atm_may_send(vcc, 0) {
+ netif_wake_queue(net_dev);
+ }
+}
/*
* Send a packet out a particular vcc. Not to useful right now, but paves
* the way for multiple vcc's per itf. Returns true if we can send,
@@ -200,20 +216,20 @@ static int br2684_xmit_vcc(struct sk_buf
ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc = atmvcc = brvcc->atmvcc;
pr_debug("atm_skb(%p)->vcc(%p)->dev(%p)\n", skb, atmvcc, atmvcc->dev);
- if (!atm_may_send(atmvcc, skb->truesize)) {
- /*
- * We free this here for now, because we cannot know in a higher
- * layer whether the skb pointer it supplied wasn't freed yet.
- * Now, it always is.
- */
- dev_kfree_skb(skb);
- return 0;
- }
atomic_add(skb->truesize, &sk_atm(atmvcc)->sk_wmem_alloc);
ATM_SKB(skb)->atm_options = atmvcc->atm_options;
dev->stats.tx_packets++;
dev->stats.tx_bytes += skb->len;
atmvcc->send(atmvcc, skb);
+
+ if (!atm_may_send(atmvcc, 0)) {
+ netif_stop_queue(brvcc->device);
+ barrier();
+ /*check for race with br2684_pop*/
+ if (atm_may_send(atmvcc, 0))
+ netif_start_queue(brvcc->device);
+ }
+
return 1;
}
@@ -502,8 +518,10 @@ static int br2684_regvcc(struct atm_vcc
atmvcc->user_back = brvcc;
brvcc->encaps = (enum br2684_encaps)be.encaps;
brvcc->old_push = atmvcc->push;
+ brvcc->old_pop = atmvcc->pop;
barrier();
atmvcc->push = br2684_push;
+ atmvcc->pop = br2684_pop;
rq = &sk_atm(atmvcc)->sk_receive_queue;
next reply other threads:[~2009-08-28 10:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-28 10:38 Karl Hiramoto [this message]
2009-08-28 12:25 ` [Linux-ATM-General] [PATCH] br2684 testing needed for packet loss and performance Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)
2009-08-29 10:24 ` Karl Hiramoto
2009-08-29 11:24 ` [PATCH] atm/br2684: netif_stop_queue() when atm device busy and netif_wake_queue() when we can send packets again Karl Hiramoto
2009-08-31 14:29 ` Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)
2009-09-03 6:27 ` David Miller
2009-09-03 13:44 ` Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)
2009-09-10 19:49 ` [Linux-ATM-General] " Philip A. Prindeville
2009-09-10 21:30 ` Karl Hiramoto
2009-09-11 18:48 ` David Miller
2009-09-15 13:44 ` Karl Hiramoto
2009-09-15 14:57 ` Karl Hiramoto
2009-09-16 18:04 ` Philip A. Prindeville
2009-09-11 19:56 ` Philip A. Prindeville
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=4A97B3A9.6040103@hiramoto.org \
--to=karl@hiramoto.org \
--cc=linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.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.