linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] ptr_ring: add ptr_ring

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <0defb746-3d4b-14b3-1ad7-82842048ebba@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:07:42 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ptr_ring: add ptr_ring_unconsume



On 2017年04月17日 07:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Applications that consume a batch of entries in one go
> can benefit from ability to return some of them back
> into the ring.
>
> Add an API for that - assuming there's space. If there's no space
> naturally we can't do this and have to drop entries, but this implies
> ring is full so we'd likely drop some anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> ---
>
> Jason, in my mind the biggest issue with your batching patchset is the
> backet drops on disconnect.  This API will help avoid that in the common
> case.

Ok, I will rebase the series on top of this. (Though I don't think we 
care the packet loss).

>
> I would still prefer that we understand what's going on,

I try to reply in another thread, does it make sense?

>   and I would
> like to know what's the smallest batch size that's still helpful,

Yes, I've replied in another thread, the result is:


no batching   1.88Mpps
RX_BATCH=1    1.93Mpps
RX_BATCH=4    2.11Mpps
RX_BATCH=16   2.14Mpps
RX_BATCH=64   2.25Mpps
RX_BATCH=256  2.18Mpps

>   but
> I'm not going to block the patch on these grounds assuming packet drops
> are fixed.

Thanks a lot.

>
> Lightly tested - this is on top of consumer batching patches.
>
> Thanks!
>
>   include/linux/ptr_ring.h | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> index 783e7f5..5fbeab4 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> @@ -457,6 +457,63 @@ static inline int ptr_ring_init(struct ptr_ring *r, int size, gfp_t gfp)
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> +/*
> + * Return entries into ring. Destroy entries that don't fit.
> + *
> + * Note: this is expected to be a rare slow path operation.
> + *
> + * Note: producer lock is nested within consumer lock, so if you
> + * resize you must make sure all uses nest correctly.
> + * In particular if you consume ring in interrupt or BH context, you must
> + * disable interrupts/BH when doing so.
> + */
> +static inline void ptr_ring_unconsume(struct ptr_ring *r, void **batch, int n,
> +				      void (*destroy)(void *))
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	int head;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&(r)->consumer_lock, flags);
> +	spin_lock(&(r)->producer_lock);
> +
> +	if (!r->size)
> +		goto done;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Clean out buffered entries (for simplicity). This way following code
> +	 * can test entries for NULL and if not assume they are valid.
> +	 */
> +	head = r->consumer_head - 1;
> +	while (likely(head >= r->consumer_tail))
> +		r->queue[head--] = NULL;
> +	r->consumer_tail = r->consumer_head;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Go over entries in batch, start moving head back and copy entries.
> +	 * Stop when we run into previously unconsumed entries.
> +	 */
> +	while (n--) {
> +		head = r->consumer_head - 1;
> +		if (head < 0)
> +			head = r->size - 1;
> +		if (r->queue[head]) {
> +			/* This batch entry will have to be destroyed. */
> +			++n;
> +			goto done;
> +		}
> +		r->queue[head] = batch[n];
> +		r->consumer_tail = r->consumer_head = head;
> +	}
> +
> +done:
> +	/* Destroy all entries left in the batch. */
> +	while (n--) {
> +		destroy(batch[n]);
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock(&(r)->producer_lock);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&(r)->consumer_lock, flags);
> +}
> +
>   static inline void **__ptr_ring_swap_queue(struct ptr_ring *r, void **queue,
>   					   int size, gfp_t gfp,
>   					   void (*destroy)(void *))