From: Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>
To: ofono@ofono.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPP: Optimize write buffer management
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 09:28:09 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D6E6209.6030908@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1299055349.1964.25.camel@pporlan-linux>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2139 bytes --]
Hi Patrick,
>> Is there a particular reason why you chose to use a ring buffer of ring
>> buffers? A simple GQueue might be much easier to understand. If you are
>> worried about 'infinite queuing' then a simple counter might help to
>> alleviate that.
>
> Well, this implementation opens the door to further optimizations, such
> as reusing cells (buffers) to avoid frequent allocation/deallocation.
>
I think I know where you're going with this, but I'm unconvinced the
circular buffer of buffers is buying you anything over the much simpler
to understand queue of buffers approach.
>
>> You change BUFFER_SIZE from 2048 to 4096 and remove the multiplication
>> here. It is a good idea to send these types of changes in a separate
>> patch for two reasons:
>> - Logically they should be separate
>> - It is much easier to review for correctness outside the context of a
>> large patch
>
> Got it. By the way, why is it written this way? Is it to stress that we
> want space for two frames?
>
You'd have to ask Marcel, but yes I think this was the intent.
>> So I think we have to be a bit careful here. HDLC framing can in theory
>> (if you're maximally unlucky) result in doubling of the data size once
>> it is framed. This means that we might have enough space in the current
>> buffer according to this estimate, but still exceed it once the actual
>> framing is performed. If so, then we have to drop the frame.
>>
>> There are two possibilities:
>> - Retry again with a full buffer this time
>> - Always pick a buffer if we have less than 2x size available
>>
>
> Thanks for the insight. Picking a new buffer may be best. That will
> cause more buffer "run away" though, strengthening the case for better
> buffer recycling strategies.
>
Yes, we definitely want to have some sort of buffer pool management
strategy to share a pool of buffers between different entities (e.g.
GAtMux, GAtServer, GAtHDLC). Have you looked at g_slice* inside glib
yet? I think we can take advantage of the fact that most of our ring
buffers are sized at 4k.
Regards,
-Denis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-02 15:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-01 15:07 [PATCH] PPP: Optimize write buffer management Patrick Porlan
2011-03-02 3:47 ` Denis Kenzior
2011-03-02 8:42 ` Patrick Porlan
2011-03-02 9:59 ` patch to fix BMC #13679 Huawei EM770: ofonod crash when disable/enable 3G technology Xu, Martin
2011-03-03 5:22 ` Denis Kenzior
2011-03-04 6:53 ` Xu, Martin
2011-03-04 15:19 ` Denis Kenzior
2011-03-02 15:28 ` Denis Kenzior [this message]
2011-03-08 16:08 ` [PATCH] PPP: Optimize write buffer management Patrick Porlan
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-03-08 15:58 Patrick Porlan
2011-03-15 19:28 ` Denis Kenzior
2011-03-16 9:00 ` Patrick Porlan
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=4D6E6209.6030908@gmail.com \
--to=denkenz@gmail.com \
--cc=ofono@ofono.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