netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] Defer skb allocation -- new skb_set calls & chain pages in virtio

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

Message-Id: <1260825825.8716.81.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:23:45 -0800
From:	Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] Defer skb allocation -- new skb_set calls &
 chain pages in virtio_net

On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 13:24 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Hmm, this scans the whole list each time.
> OTOH, the caller probably can easily get list tail as well as head.
> If we ask caller to give us list tail, and chain them at head, then
> 1. we won't have to scan the list each time
> 2. we get better memory locality reusing same pages over and over
> again

I could use page private to point to a list_head which will have a head
and a tail, but it will induce more alloc, and free, when this page is
passed to ULPs as a part of skb frags, it would induce more overhead.

> So this comment does not explain why this = 0 is here.
> clearly = 0 does not chain anything.
> Please add a bigger comment.
> I think you also want to extend the comment at top of
> file, where datastructure is, that explains the deferred
> alogorigthm and how pages are chained.
Ok, will do.

> Use min for clarity instead of opencoded if.
> This will make it obvious that len won't ever become
> negative below.
Ok.

> > +static struct sk_buff *skb_goodcopy(struct virtnet_info *vi, struct
> page **page,
> 
> I know you got this name from GOOD_COPY_LEN, but it's not
> very good for a function :) and skb_ prefix is also confusing.
> Just copy_small_skb or something like that?
> 
> > +                                 unsigned int *len)
Ok.

> Comments about splitting patches  apply here as well.
> No way to understand what this should do and whether it
> does it correctly just by looking at patch.
> I think reader will still wonder about is "why does it
> need to be 16 byte aligned?". And this is what
> comment should explain I think.

Ok, will put more comments.

> So you are overriding *len here? why bother calculating it
> then?
I can remove the overriding part.

> Also - this does *not* always copy all of data, and *page
> tells us whether it did a copy or not? This is pretty confusing,
> as APIs go. Also, if we have scatter/gather anyway,
> why do we bother copying the head?

If receiving buffer in mergeable buf and big packets, the packet is
small, then there is no scatter/gather, we can release the page for new
receiving, that was the reason to copy skb head. *page will be only used
by big packets path to indicate whether/where to start next skb frag if
any.

> Also, before skb_set_frag skb is linear, right?
> So in fact you do not need generic skb_set_frag,
> you can just put stuff in the first fragment.
> For example, pass the fragment number to skb_set_frag,
> compiler will be able to better optimize.

You meant to reuse skb_put_frags() in ipoib_cm.c?

Thanks
Shirley

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html