[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9d611cbc-3728-463d-ba8a-5732e28b8cf4@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:07:04 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Philo Lu <lulie@...ux.alibaba.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, dsahern@...nel.org,
antony.antony@...unet.com, steffen.klassert@...unet.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com,
jakub@...udflare.com, fred.cc@...baba-inc.com,
yubing.qiuyubing@...baba-inc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 2/3] net/udp: Add 4-tuple hash list basis
Hi,
On 10/12/24 03:29, Philo Lu wrote:
> @@ -3480,13 +3486,14 @@ static struct udp_table __net_init *udp_pernet_table_alloc(unsigned int hash_ent
> if (!udptable)
> goto out;
>
> - slot_size = sizeof(struct udp_hslot) + sizeof(struct udp_hslot_main);
> + slot_size = 2 * sizeof(struct udp_hslot) + sizeof(struct udp_hslot_main);
> udptable->hash = vmalloc_huge(hash_entries * slot_size,
> GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
I'm sorry for the late feedback.
I think it would be better to make the hash4 infra a no op (no lookup,
no additional memory used) for CONFIG_BASE_SMALL=y builds.
It would be great if you could please share some benchmark showing the
raw max receive PPS performances for unconnected sockets, with and
without this series applied, to ensure this does not cause any real
regression for such workloads.
Thanks,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists