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 ?
next prev parent 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