[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1291126341.2904.82.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:12:21 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] af_packet: use vmalloc_to_page() instead for the
addresss returned by vmalloc()
Le mardi 30 novembre 2010 à 21:56 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
> The following commit causes the pgv->buffer may point to the memory
> returned by vmalloc(). And we can't use virt_to_page() for the vmalloc
> address.
>
> This patch introduces a new inline function pgv_to_page(), which calls
> vmalloc_to_page() for the vmalloc address, and virt_to_page() for the
> __get_free_pages address.
>
> commit 0e3125c755445664f00ad036e4fc2cd32fd52877
> Author: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
> Date: Tue Nov 16 10:26:47 2010 -0800
>
> packet: Enhance AF_PACKET implementation to not require high order contiguous memory allocation (v4)
>
nice catch.
> Signed-off-by: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
> ---
> net/packet/af_packet.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> index 422705d..0171b20 100644
> --- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
> +++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> @@ -224,6 +224,13 @@ struct packet_skb_cb {
>
> #define PACKET_SKB_CB(__skb) ((struct packet_skb_cb *)((__skb)->cb))
>
> +static inline struct page *pgv_to_page(void *addr)
> +{
> + if (is_vmalloc_addr(addr))
> + return vmalloc_to_page(addr);
Hmm, I am wondering if calling vmalloc_to_page(addr) several times for
each packet is not too expensive ? I believe it is.
What about caching "struct page *" pointer somewhere ?
Then later we have :
> - p_start = virt_to_page(h.raw);
> - p_end = virt_to_page(h_end);
> + p_start = pgv_to_page(h.raw);
> + p_end = pgv_to_page(h_end);
> while (p_start <= p_end) {
> flush_dcache_page(p_start);
> p_start++;
This was OK before Neil patch... after vmalloc(), assumption that
p_start can be incremented is completely wrong.
To fix this, we need something else than your patch.
--
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