Re: [PATCH][RFC 23/23]: Support for zero-copy TCP transmit of user space data

Vladislav Bolkhovitin
2008-12-23T19:15:16Z

Rusty Russell, on 12/22/2008 03:43 AM wrote:
> On Sunday 21 December 2008 06:09:18 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>>> Things should work fine, since pskb_expand_head() copies whole shared
>>> info structure (and thus will copy destructor), get all pages and then
>>> copy all pointers into the new skb, and then release old skb's data.
>>>
>>> So destructor for the pages should not rely on which skb it is called on
>>> and check if pages are about to be really freed (i.e. check theirs
>>> reference counter).
>>>
>> OK.
>>
>>> __pskb_pull_tail() is tricky, it just puts some pages it does not want
>>> to be present in the skb, but it could be possible to add there
>>> destructor callback from the original skb with partial flag (or just
>>> having destructor with two parameters: skb and page, and if page is not
>>> NULL, then actually only given page is freed, otherwise the whole skb).
>>>
>> Yes, that doesn't sound too bad.
>
> That would be one approach. Actually, my patch solved this by keeping a
> parent ref in various cases if the parent had a destructor: we only destroy
> the parent when all the clones are gone.
>
> Here's the patch for reference:
>
> net: add destructor for skb data.
>
> If we want to notify something when an skb is truly finished (such as
> for tun vringfd support), we need a destructor on the data.
>
> This turns out to be slightly non-trivial as fragments from one skb
> get copied to another skb: if the first skb has a destructor (or its
> parent does) we need to keep a reference to it and destroy it only
> when (all the) children are destroyed. We add an 'orig' pointer to
> the skb_shared_info to do this.
>
> But there's currently no way to get from the shinfo to the head (to
> kfree it), so we add a 'len' field. A better alternative to this
> might be to move the skb_shared_info to before the head of the skb data.
>
> Note that the destructor is responsible for calling kfree: for the tun
> device, this is critical since the destructor can be called from any
> context and it has to do a copy_to_user, so it queues the skb.

Rusty,

Can you describe how one should use your patch, please? Maybe, there is
some code you use to test it?

Thanks,
Vlad