Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet

[Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 10:19 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 09, 2013 07:00:22 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 09:19 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > As Casey already mentioned, if this isn't acceptable please help me
> > > understand why.
> > 
> > You see something which is not the reality. If you do such analysis,
> > better do it properly, because any change you are going to submit will
> > be doubly checked by people who really care.
> 
> I am attempting to do it properly, I simply made a mistake.  Ben also pointed 
> it out.  As you wrote yesterday, "Lets go forward".
> 
> After fixing the BITS_PER_LONG problem I looked at it again and it appears 
> that by simply replacing the "secmark" field with a blob we retain the size of 
> the sk_buff as well as the cacheline positions of all the fields, e.g. 
> dma_cookie no longer moves cachelines.  Thoughts?

If you take a look at recent history of changes on sk_buff, you can see
we added very recently fields for encapsulation support. These were
absolutely wanted for modern operations at datacenter level.

This effort might still need new room, so I prefer not filling sk_buff
right now.

Take a look at the cloned sk_buff. We need an extra atomic_t at the end,
so if make sk_buff bigger than 0xf8 bytes,  fclone_cache will use an
extra cache line as well. Not a big deal, but RPC workloads like netperf
-t TCP_RR will probably show a regression.

ls -l /sys/kernel/slab/skbuff_fclone_cache