linux-kernel - Re: [net-next rfc 1/3] net: avoid high order memory allocation for queues by using flex array

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]

Message-ID: <20130619154059.GA13735@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:40:59 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com, hkchu@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next rfc 1/3] net: avoid high order memory allocation for
 queues by using flex array

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:56:03AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 12:11 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 
> > Well KVM supports up to 160 VCPUs on x86.
> > 
> > Creating a queue per CPU is very reasonable, and
> > assuming cache line size of 64 bytes, netdev_queue seems to be 320
> > bytes, that's 320*160 = 51200. So 12.5 pages, order-4 allocation.
> > I agree most people don't have such systems yet, but
> > they do exist.
> 
> Even so, it will just work, like a fork() is likely to work, even if a
> process needs order-1 allocation for kernel stack.
> 
> Some drivers still use order-10 allocations with kmalloc(), and nobody
> complained yet.
> 
> We had complains with mlx4 driver lately only bcause kmalloc() now gives
> a warning if allocations above MAX_ORDER are attempted.
> 
> Having a single pointer means that we can :
> 
> - Attempts a regular kmalloc() call, it will work most of the time.
> - fallback to vmalloc() _if_ kmalloc() failed.

That's a good trick too - vmalloc memory is a bit slower
on x86 since it's not using a huge page, but that's only
when we have lots of CPUs/queues...

Short term - how about switching to vmalloc if > 32 queues?

> Frankly, if you want one tx queue per cpu, I would rather use
> NETIF_F_LLTX, like some other virtual devices.
> 
> This way, you can have real per cpu memory, with proper NUMA affinity.
> 
> 
--
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/