linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] virtio_net: Don't disable napi on low memory.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <877h119xur.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:16:52 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
Cc:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] virtio_net: Don't disable napi on low memory.

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 09:54:46 -0800, Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> >> 4) You use the skb data for the linked list; use the skb head's list.
> 
> What did you mean by this?  I was under the impression that the ->next
> and ->prev fields in sk_buff were the first two elements specifically
> so that the pointer could be treated as a list_head.  If it's the cast
> in particular that you have an objection with, I can easily change
> this to a singly linked list threaded through ->next if that's
> cleaner.

Yep, I saw the cast and misread your code.  I could have sworn that skb
used a real list_head these days, but I'm wrong.

> >>
> >> Instead, here's how I think it should be done:
> ...
> >
> > This sounds reasonable to me.  I'll see what I can muster together this week.
> >
> 
> So I started implementing it the way you were mentioning, and ran into
> a problem with the original patchset.
> 
> Currently the "mergeable" and "big" receive buffers use a private page
> free list (virtnet_info->pages) which has no synchronization itself.
> This means that the batched version can't use get_a_page() and
> give_pages() as is, which reduces the need to re-use the same alloc
> halves that I've split.   Alternatives I can think of at this point:
> 
> - pass in a flag to the allocators like "bool is_serial" that is true
> if we are serializing with napi, (which determines if we can much with
> vi->pages)
> or
> - not use the same allocators for the "mergeable" and "big" paths.
> The mergeable allocator in the non-serialized case reduces to
> alloc_page(), while the big allocator looks like a copy and paste that
> uses alloc_page instead of get_a_page().
> 
> Preferences?  I'll code one of the two up and see what it looks like.

Whatever results in a cleaner driver, I'm happy.

Thanks,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/