From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] folding socket->wq into struct socket
Date: Sun, 5 May 2019 18:59:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190505175943.GC23075@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190505.100421.2250762717881638194.davem@davemloft.net>
On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 10:04:21AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 17:32:23 +0100
>
> > it appears that we might take freeing the socket itself to the
> > RCU-delayed part, along with socket->wq. And doing that has
> > an interesting benefit - the only reason to do two separate
> > allocation disappears.
>
> I'm pretty sure we looked into RCU freeing the socket in the
> past but ended up not doing so.
>
> I think it had to do with the latency in releasing sock related
> objects.
>
> However, I might be confusing "struct socket" with "struct sock"
Erm... the only object with changed release time is the memory
occupied by struct sock_alloc. Currently:
final iput of socket
schedule RCU-delayed kfree() of socket->wq
kfree() of socket
With this change:
final iput of socket
schedule RCU-delayed kfree() of coallocated socket and socket->wq
So it would have to be a workload where tons of sockets are created and
torn down, where RCU-delayed freeing of socket_wq is an inevitable evil,
but freeing struct socket_alloc itself must be done immediately, to
reduce the memory pressure. Or am I misreading you?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-05 17:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-02 16:32 [RFC] folding socket->wq into struct socket Al Viro
2019-05-05 17:04 ` David Miller
2019-05-05 17:59 ` Al Viro [this message]
2019-05-05 18:25 ` David Miller
2019-05-16 0:02 ` 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=20190505175943.GC23075@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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