[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131030103958.GB3261@citrix.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:39:59 +0000
From: Joby Poriyath <joby.poriyath@...rix.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
<ian.campbell@...rix.com>, <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
<andrew.bennieston@...rix.com>, <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
<malcolm.crossley@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] xen-netback: allocate xenvif arrays using
vzalloc.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 04:32:12PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 16:24 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 18:46 +0000, Joby Poriyath wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:43:50AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 15:27 +0000, Joby Poriyath wrote:
> > > > > This will reduce memory pressure when allocating struct xenvif.
> > > > >
> > > > > The size of xenvif struct has increased from 168 to 36632 bytes (on x86-32).
> > > > > See commit b3f980bd827e6e81a050c518d60ed7811a83061d. This resulted in
> > > > > occasional netdev allocation failure in dom0 with 752MiB RAM, due to
> > > > > fragmented memory.
> > > >
> > > > This looks overkill.
> > > >
> > > > Replacing a single allocation of ~36 KB into 5 vmalloc() looks like you
> > > > did not really tried other things...
> > > >
> > > > This should be done generically in alloc_netdev_mqs()
> > >
> > > Sorry Eric, I didn't quite understand how this can be generically done.
> > >
> > > The netback interfaces are tied to the Xen guests (VMs) and these are created
> > > when guests are started and deleted when guest are halted.
> >
> > They are created by alloc_netdev_mqs()
>
> Something like the following should be fine.
>
>
>
Thanks for the patch.
> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index 0054c8c..874a57a 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -6239,7 +6239,9 @@ struct net_device *alloc_netdev_mqs(int sizeof_priv, const char *name,
> /* ensure 32-byte alignment of whole construct */
> alloc_size += NETDEV_ALIGN - 1;
>
> - p = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> + p = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_REPEAT);
> + if (!p)
> + p = vzalloc(alloc_size);
> if (!p)
> return NULL;
>
The net_device allocation rule {linux/Documentation/networking/netdevices.txt} states
that net_device struct must be allocated using kmalloc.
Is this safe to do?
> @@ -6302,7 +6304,10 @@ free_pcpu:
> #endif
>
> free_p:
> - kfree(p);
> + if (is_vmalloc_addr(p))
> + vfree(p);
> + else
> + kfree(p);
> return NULL;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(alloc_netdev_mqs);
> @@ -6339,7 +6344,12 @@ void free_netdev(struct net_device *dev)
>
> /* Compatibility with error handling in drivers */
> if (dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNINITIALIZED) {
> - kfree((char *)dev - dev->padded);
> + char *addr = (char *)dev - dev->padded;
> +
> + if (is_vmalloc_addr(addr))
> + vfree(addr);
> + else
> + kfree(addr);
> return;
> }
>
> diff --git a/net/core/net-sysfs.c b/net/core/net-sysfs.c
> index d954b56..406c54b 100644
> --- a/net/core/net-sysfs.c
> +++ b/net/core/net-sysfs.c
> @@ -1259,11 +1259,16 @@ exit:
> static void netdev_release(struct device *d)
> {
> struct net_device *dev = to_net_dev(d);
> + char *addr;
>
> BUG_ON(dev->reg_state != NETREG_RELEASED);
>
> kfree(dev->ifalias);
> - kfree((char *)dev - dev->padded);
> + addr = (char *)dev - dev->padded;
> + if (is_vmalloc_addr(addr))
> + vfree(addr);
> + else
> + kfree(addr);
> }
>
> static const void *net_namespace(struct device *d)
>
>
Thanks,
Joby
--
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