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.
next prev parent 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).