[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKyyzSQp2yben9XzfdTWJW1MajDHasQ2KHRdsrJeeqVg2d43+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 14:09:04 +0300
From: Igor Royzis <igorr@...rtex.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Anton Nayshtut <anton@...rtex.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixed zero copy GSO without orphaning the fragments
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 14:24 +0300, Igor Royzis wrote:
>> Fix accessing GSO fragments memory (and a possible corruption therefore) after
>> reporting completion in a zero copy callback. The previous fix in the commit 1fd819ec
>> orphaned frags which eliminates zero copy advantages. The fix makes the completion
>> called after all the fragments were processed avoiding unnecessary orphaning/copying
>> from userspace.
>>
>> The GSO fragments corruption issue was observed in a typical QEMU/KVM VM setup that
>> hosts a Windows guest (since QEMU virtio-net Windows driver doesn't support GRO).
>> The fix has been verified by running the HCK OffloadLSO test.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Igor Royzis <igorr@...rtex.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Anton Nayshtut <anton@...rtex.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/skbuff.h | 1 +
>> net/core/skbuff.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
>> index 08074a8..8c49edc 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
>> @@ -287,6 +287,7 @@ struct skb_shared_info {
>> struct sk_buff *frag_list;
>> struct skb_shared_hwtstamps hwtstamps;
>> __be32 ip6_frag_id;
>> + struct sk_buff *zcopy_src;
>>
>
> Before your patch :
>
> sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)=0x140
> offsetof(struct skb_shared_info, frags[1])=0x40
>
> SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) -> 0x140
>
> After your patch :
>
> sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)=0x148
> offsetof(struct skb_shared_info, frags[1])=0x48
>
> SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) -> 0x180
>
> Thats a serious bump, because it increases all skb truesizes, and
> typical skb with one fragment will use 2 cache lines instead of one in
> struct skb_shared_info, so this adds memory pressure in fast path.
>
> So while this patch might increase performance for some workloads,
> it generally decreases performance on many others.
Would it "ease" the memory cache penalty if we moved the parent
fragment pointer from skb_shared_info to skbuff itself?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists