netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: mvpp2: fix dma unmapping of TX buffers for fragments

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 17 Dec 2016 16:26:58 +0100
From:   Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        jason@...edaemon.net, andrew@...n.ch,
        sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com,
        gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com, mw@...ihalf.com,
        stefanc@...vell.com, nadavh@...vell.com, hannah@...vell.com,
        yehuday@...vell.com, raphael.glon@...p.ovh.com,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: mvpp2: fix dma unmapping of TX buffers for
 fragments

Hello,

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:20:57 -0500 (EST), David Miller wrote:

> You're really destroying cache locality, and making things overly
> complicated, by having two arrays.  Actually this is now the third in
> this structure alone.  That's crazy.
> 
> Just have one array for the TX ring software state:
> 
> struct tx_buff_info {
> 	struct sk_buff	*skb;
> 	dma_addr_t	dma_addr;
> 	unsigned int	size;
> };
> 
> Then in the per-cpu TX struct:
> 
> 	struct tx_buff_info	*info;
> 
> This way every data access by the cpu for processing a ring entry
> will be localized, increasing cache hit rates.
> 
> This also significantly simplifies the code that allocates and
> frees this memory.

Yes, I was thinking of moving towards a single array, as it's indeed
crazy to have three arrays for that. However, since it's a fix going
into stable, I also wanted to keep it as simple/straightforward as
possible and avoid refactoring other parts of the code.

If you however believe moving to one array should be done as part of
the fix, I'll do this.

Thanks for your feedback,

Thomas Petazzoni
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com