public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] net: batch skb dequeueing from softnet input_pkt_queue
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:33:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1271946805.7895.5658.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <y2n412e6f7f1004220606id324dc9bj2cc04cfbad50a101@mail.gmail.com>

Le jeudi 22 avril 2010 à 21:06 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Please reorder things better.
> >
> > Most likely this function is called for one packet.
> >
> > In your version you take twice the rps_lock()/rps_unlock() path, so
> > it'll be slower.
> >
> > Once to 'transfert' one list to process list
> >
> > Once to be able to do the 'label out:' post processing.
> >
> 
> It doesn't make any difference. We have to hold rps_lock to update
> input_pkt_queue_len, if we don't use another variable to record the
> length of the process queue, or atomic variable.
> 

It does make a difference, Damn it.

I really really start to think you dont read what I wrote, or you dont
care.

Damn, cant you update all the things at once, taking this lock only
once ?

You focus having an ultra precise count of pkt_queue.len, but we dont
care at all ! We only want a _limit_, or else the box can be killed by
DOS.

If in practice this limit can be 2*limit, thats OK. 

Cant you understand this ?

> I think it is better that using another variable to record the length
> of the process queue, and updating it before process_backlog()
> returns. For one packet, there is only one locking/unlocking. There is
> only one issue you concerned: cache miss due to sum the two queues'
> length. I'll change softnet_data to:
> 
> struct softnet_data {
>         struct Qdisc            *output_queue;
>         struct list_head        poll_list;
>         struct sk_buff          *completion_queue;
>         struct sk_buff_head     process_queue;
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_RPS
>         struct softnet_data     *rps_ipi_list;
> 
>         /* Elements below can be accessed between CPUs for RPS */
>         struct call_single_data csd ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>         struct softnet_data     *rps_ipi_next;
>         unsigned int            cpu;
>         unsigned int            input_queue_head;
> #endif
>         unsigned int            process_queue_len;
>         struct sk_buff_head     input_pkt_queue;
>         struct napi_struct      backlog;
> };
> 
> For one packets, we have to update process_queue_len in any way. For
> more packets, we only change process_queue_len just before
> process_backlog() returns. It means that process_queue_len change is
> batched.
> 

We need one limit. Not two limits.

I already told you how to do it, but you ignored me and started yet
another convoluted thing.


process_backlog() transfert the queue to its own queue and reset pkt_len
to 0 (Only once)

End of story.

Maximum packet queued to this cpu softnet_data will be 2 * old_limit.

So what ?



  reply	other threads:[~2010-04-22 14:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-04-22  9:09 [PATCH v5] net: batch skb dequeueing from softnet input_pkt_queue Changli Gao
2010-04-22  9:43 ` David Miller
2010-04-22 12:27   ` Changli Gao
2010-04-22 14:24     ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-22 11:37 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-22 12:17   ` jamal
2010-04-22 13:06   ` Changli Gao
2010-04-22 14:33     ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2010-04-22 14:54       ` Changli Gao

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=1271946805.7895.5658.camel@edumazet-laptop \
    --to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=therbert@google.com \
    --cc=xiaosuo@gmail.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox