[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1279255346.2433.16.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:42:26 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
Cc: hadi@...erus.ca, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] act_cpu: packet distributing
Le vendredi 16 juillet 2010 à 07:30 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > Even if we solve this locking problem, using percpu variables, act_cpu
> > hits another problem :
> >
> > The socket refcount, taken by the 'master' cpu, and released by the
> > consumer cpu.
> This is why I asked if I can assign sk to skb.
>
This assignement doesnt change the cache line ping pong problem.
Let me explain for you :
You lookup the TCP or UDP socket. This automatically takes a refcount on
it (atomic operation on sk->sk_refcnt).
Then you assign sk to skb. (skb->sk = sk)
Then you transfert skb handling to another cpu (IPI cost already in RPS
as we all know)
This remote cpu finds skb->sk (and avoids the lookup/refcnt) and handles
the packet through TCP/UDP stack.
This remote cpu _releases_ the socket refcount.
Conclusion :
"The socket refcount, taken by the 'master' cpu, and released by the
consumer cpu."
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists