From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: reimplement completion_queue as a FIFO queue
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:09:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1272262154.2069.1032.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <q2w412e6f7f1004252244s3a5000eft850c2a5dc0fd72d1@mail.gmail.com>
Le lundi 26 avril 2010 à 13:44 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Le lundi 26 avril 2010 à 11:20 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
> >> reimplement completion_queue as a FIFO queue.
> >>
> >> As slab allocator always does its best to return the latest unused objects, we'd
> >> better release skb in order, this patch reimplement completion_queue as a FIFO
> >> queue instead of the old LIFO queue.
> >
> >
> > 1) New devices dont use completion queue.
>
> It is good enough reason for rejection.
>
I said, this part of the kernel is not used today.
> >
> > 2) Hot objects are the last enqueued.
> > If many objects were queued, the old one are not hot anymore.
> >
> > Using FIFO will give more cache misses, when walking the chain
> > (skb->next)
> >
>
> I meaned that slab allocator maintains objects in the LIFO manner, and
> if we call kmem_cache_alloc(cache) after a kmem_cache_free(cache)
> call, the last object freed by kmem_cache_free(cache) will be
> returned, as this object are more likely in cache and hot. If we don't
> realse skbs in FIFO manner, the last and hot one will not been
> returned at first.
>
But your patch doesnt change this behavior. This is irrelevant.
LIFO is the slub behavior, for the exact reason its better for cache
reuse. Same for completion queue.
I repeat :
- slub dont touch objects in normal situations.
- LIFO is better for caches.
- LIFO is faster (one pointer for the queue head)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-26 6:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-26 3:20 [PATCH 1/2] net: reimplement completion_queue as a FIFO queue Changli Gao
2010-04-26 5:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-26 5:44 ` Changli Gao
2010-04-26 6:09 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2010-04-26 6:27 ` David Miller
2010-04-26 7:21 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-26 7:22 ` David Miller
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=1272262154.2069.1032.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--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