Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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?

  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