linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] skbuff: introduce skbuff

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]

Date:   Wed, 13 Jan 2021 10:12:10 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>,
        Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>,
        Yadu Kishore <kyk.segfault@...il.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] skbuff: introduce skbuff_heads bulking and
 reusing

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:15:20 +0100 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > IDK much about MM, but we already have a kmem_cache for skbs and now
> > we're building a cache on top of a cache.  Shouldn't MM take care of
> > providing a per-CPU BH-only lockless cache?  
> 
> I think part of the improvement comes from bulk operations, which are
> provided by mm layer.
> 
> I also note Alexander made no provision for NUMA awareness.
> Probably reusing skb located on a remote node will not be ideal.

I was wondering about that yesterday, but couldn't really think 
of a legitimate reason not to have XPS set up right. Do you have
particular config in mind, or are we taking "default config"?

Also can't the skb _itself_ be pfmemalloc?

My main point is that I'm wondering if this sort of cache would be
useful when allocating skbs for sockets? Assuming that the network
stack is not isolated to its own cores, won't fronting alloc_skb() 
with 

	bh_disable() 
	try the cache
	bh_enable()

potentially help? In that sense fronting kmem_cache would feel cleaner
than our own little ring buffer.