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: <51C28FA7.2070901@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:14:15 +0800
From:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...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 06/19/2013 05:56 PM, 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.
>
> Frankly, if you want one tx queue per cpu, I would rather use
> NETIF_F_LLTX, like some other virtual devices.

A drawback of NETIF_F_LLTX is that we may contend on qdisc lock
especially when we have a huge number of tx queues.
>
> 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/