[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241101190101.4a2b765f@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:01:01 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: horms@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
pabeni@...hat.com, thepacketgeek@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davej@...emonkey.org.uk, vlad.wing@...il.com,
max@...sevol.com, kernel-team@...a.com, jiri@...nulli.us, jv@...sburgh.net,
andy@...yhouse.net, aehkn@...hub.one, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, Al
Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: netpoll: Defer skb_pool population
until setup success
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 11:18:29 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote:
> > I think that a best mechanism might be something like:
> >
> > * If find_skb() needs to consume from the pool (which is rare, only
> > when alloc_skb() fails), raise workthread that tries to repopulate the
> > pool in the background.
> >
> > * Eventually avoid alloc_skb() first, and getting directly from the
> > pool first, if the pool is depleted, try to alloc_skb(GPF_ATOMIC).
> > This might make the code faster, but, I don't have data yet.
>
> I've hacked this case (getting the skb from the pool first and refilling
> it on a workqueue) today, and the performance is expressive.
>
> I've tested sending 2k messages, and meassured the time it takes to
> run `netpoll_send_udp`, which is the critical function in netpoll.
The purpose of the pool is to have a reserve in case of OOM, AFAIU.
We may speed things up by taking the allocations out of line but
we risk the pool being empty when we really need it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists