netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx()
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:19:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47BE06F7.5080305@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47BDDBB5.1050603@fr.ibm.com>

Daniel Lezcano a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Hi David
>>
>> This is an RFC, based on net-2.6 for convenience only.
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx()
>>
>> Loopback transmit function loopback_xmit() actually calls netif_rx() 
>> to queue
>> a skb to the softnet queue, and arms a softirq so that this skb can be 
>> handled later.
>>
>> This has a cost on SMP, because we need to hold a reference on the 
>> device, and free this
>> reference when softirq dequeues packet.
>>
>> Following patch directly calls netif_receive_skb() and avoids lot of 
>> atomic operations.
>> (atomic_inc(&dev->refcnt), set_and_set_bit(NAPI_STATE_SCHED, 
>> &n->state), ...
>>  atomic_dec(&dev->refcnt)...), cache line ping-pongs on device refcnt, 
>> but also softirq overhead.
>>
>> This gives a nice boost on tbench for example (5 % on my machine)
> 
> I understand this is interesting for the loopback when there is no 
> multiple instances of it and it can't be unregistered. But now with the 
> network namespaces, we can have multiple instances of the loopback and 
> it can to be unregistered. Shouldn't we still use netif_rx ?
> Perhaps we can do something like:
> 
>     if (dev->nd_net == &init_net)
>         netif_receive_skb(skb);
>     else
>         netif_rx(skb);

or

#ifdef CONFIG_NET_NS
	if (dev->nd_net != &init_net)
		netif_rx(skb);
	else
#endif
		netif_receive_skb(skb);

> 
> Or we create:
>     init_loopback_xmit() calling netif_receive_skb(skb);
>     and setup this function when creating the loopback for init_net,
>     otherwise we setup the usual loopback_xmit.
> 
> We are still safe for multiple network namespaces and we have the 
> improvement for init_net loopback.
> 

I dont understand how my patch could degrade loopbackdev unregister logic. It 
should only help it, by avoiding a queue of 'pending packets' per cpu.

When we want to unregister a network device, stack makes sure that no more 
calls to dev->hard_start_xmit() can occur.

If no more loopback_xmit() calls are done on this device, it doesnt matter if 
it internally uses netif_rx() or netif_receive_skb(skb)

loopback device has no queue, its really unfortunate to use the 'softirq' 
internal queue.

  reply	other threads:[~2008-02-21 23:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-21 18:51 [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx() Eric Dumazet
2008-02-21 20:14 ` Daniel Lezcano
2008-02-21 23:19   ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2008-02-22 10:19     ` Daniel Lezcano
2008-02-27  2:21 ` David Miller
2008-02-27  7:20   ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-02-27  7:23     ` David Miller
2008-02-27  7:34       ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-03-01 10:26   ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-04  4:55     ` David Miller
2008-03-04  5:15       ` Stephen Hemminger
2008-03-04  6:27       ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-23 10:29     ` David Miller
2008-03-23 18:48       ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-23 19:15         ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-29  1:36         ` David Miller
2008-03-29  8:18           ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-29 23:54             ` David Miller
2008-03-31  6:38               ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-31  9:48         ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-31 10:01           ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-31 10:12             ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-01  9:19               ` Eric Dumazet
2008-04-03 14:06                 ` Pavel Machek
2008-04-03 16:19                   ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-31 10:08           ` David Miller
2008-03-31 10:44             ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-31 11:02               ` David Miller
2008-03-31 11:36                 ` poor network loopback performance and scalability (was: Re: [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx()) Ingo Molnar
2008-04-21  3:24                   ` Herbert Xu
2008-04-21  3:38                     ` poor network loopback performance and scalability David Miller
2008-04-21  8:11                       ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-21  8:16                         ` David Miller
2008-04-21 10:19                           ` Herbert Xu
2008-04-21 10:22                             ` 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=47BE06F7.5080305@cosmosbay.com \
    --to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dlezcano@fr.ibm.com \
    --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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).