From: Maxime Bizon <mbizon@freebox.fr>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: David Madore <david+ml@madore.org>,
Francois Romieu <romieu@fr.zoreil.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Subject: Re: kernel 3.2.27 on arm: WARNING: at mm/page_alloc.c:2109 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1d4/0x68c()
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:51:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1349441509.28867.17.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1349439732.21172.52.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 14:22 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Yes, but the idea of the patch was to _avoid_ next pskb_expand_head()
> calls...
yes but we cannot be sure of that, the caller may not have a good idea
of the headroom needed for the whole lifetime of the skb
it's better to think we will reduce number of calls, not avoid them
that's why I think doubling the size each time is dangerous, since we
silently request bigger and bigger allocations if an skb takes an
unoptimized path
> Hmm,
>
> this changes nothing assuming current_end == skb_end_offset(skb)
> and current_head = skb->head
My idea was to leave skb->end at its last position even if we grow
skb->head.
Since we have a way to know the current allocation size of skb->head,
further pskb_expand_head() calls to request tailroom would just push
skb->tail & skb->end together if that fits in current ksize().
I've not looked at recent changes in mainline, since you changed how
skb->head is managed, that may be totally impossible.
Your proposed changed API change to expand_head will fill this anyway.
> New convention would be : pass number of needed bytes after current
> tail, not after current end.
Fully agree on this
--
Maxime
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-05 12:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20120829002548.GA7063@aldebaran.gro-tsen.net>
2012-09-01 2:21 ` kernel 3.2.27 on arm: WARNING: at mm/page_alloc.c:2109 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1d4/0x68c() Hugh Dickins
2012-09-01 8:20 ` Francois Romieu
2012-09-02 22:51 ` David Madore
2012-10-04 16:02 ` Maxime Bizon
2012-10-04 16:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-05 7:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-05 10:49 ` Maxime Bizon
2012-10-05 12:22 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-05 12:37 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-05 12:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-05 12:51 ` Maxime Bizon [this message]
2012-10-05 13:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-05 14:50 ` Maxime Bizon
2012-10-05 15:04 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-05 15:15 ` Maxime Bizon
2012-10-05 15:37 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-05 16:23 ` [PATCH] net: remove skb recycling Eric Dumazet
2012-10-07 4:41 ` David Miller
2012-10-04 16:50 ` kernel 3.2.27 on arm: WARNING: at mm/page_alloc.c:2109 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1d4/0x68c() Eric Dumazet
2012-10-04 17:09 ` Maxime Bizon
2012-10-04 17:17 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-04 17:34 ` Maxime Bizon
2012-10-04 21:27 ` Eric Dumazet
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=1349441509.28867.17.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net \
--to=mbizon@freebox.fr \
--cc=david+ml@madore.org \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=romieu@fr.zoreil.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).