From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 12/13] xen-netfront: implement TX persistent grants Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 11:23:35 +0100 Message-ID: <555B0F27.8040206@citrix.com> References: <1431451117-70051-1-git-send-email-joao.martins@neclab.eu> <1431451117-70051-13-git-send-email-joao.martins@neclab.eu> <555A0B5D.3090505@citrix.com> <77896F5F-DC2C-4F2A-9BB3-CE5F404DCECC@neclab.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "wei.liu2@citrix.com" , "ian.campbell@citrix.com" , "boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com" To: Joao Martins , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" Return-path: Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:54791 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750834AbbESKXi (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2015 06:23:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <77896F5F-DC2C-4F2A-9BB3-CE5F404DCECC@neclab.eu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 19/05/15 11:20, Joao Martins wrote: > > On 18 May 2015, at 17:55, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 12/05/15 18:18, Joao Martins wrote: >>> Instead of grant/revoking the buffer related to the skb, it will use >>> an already granted page and memcpy to it. The grants will be mapped >>> by xen-netback and reused overtime, but only unmapped when the vif >>> disconnects, as opposed to every packet. >>> >>> This only happens if the backend supports persistent grants since it >>> would, otherwise, introduce the overhead of a memcpy on top of the >>> grant map. >> [...] >>> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c >> [...] >>> @@ -1610,7 +1622,10 @@ static int xennet_init_queue(struct netfront_queue *queue) >>> for (i = 0; i < NET_TX_RING_SIZE; i++) { >>> skb_entry_set_link(&queue->tx_skbs[i], i+1); >>> queue->grant_tx[i].ref = GRANT_INVALID_REF; >>> - queue->grant_tx[i].page = NULL; >>> + if (queue->info->feature_persistent) >>> + queue->grant_tx[i].page = alloc_page(GFP_NOIO); >> >> Need to check for alloc failure here and unwind correctly? > Sorry, I overlooked this check. I will fix that. > >> Why NOIO? > May be I am misusing NOIO where I meant __GFP_WAIT. > Tough given we are under rtnl_lock() perhaps GFP_ATOMIC should be used instead. rtnl_lock() is a mutex, so sleeping is allowed, so GFP_KERNEL is fine here I think. David