netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 1/5] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant map definitions

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: <5272B0A7.30104@citrix.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:33:59 +0000
From:	Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>
To:	Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>, <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
	<wei.liu2@...rix.com>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<jonathan.davies@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 1/5] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant map
 definitions

On 30/10/13 00:50, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> +void xenvif_zerocopy_callback(struct ubuf_info *ubuf, bool zerocopy_success)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	pending_ring_idx_t index;
> +	u16 pending_idx = ubuf->desc;
> +	struct pending_tx_info *temp =
> +		container_of(ubuf, struct pending_tx_info, callback_struct);
> +	struct xenvif *vif =
> +		container_of(temp - pending_idx, struct xenvif,
> +			pending_tx_info[0]);
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&vif->dealloc_lock, flags);
> +	do {
> +		pending_idx = ubuf->desc;
> +		ubuf = (struct ubuf_info *) ubuf->ctx;
> +		index = pending_index(vif->dealloc_prod);
> +		vif->dealloc_ring[index] = pending_idx;
> +		/* Sync with xenvif_tx_action_dealloc:
> +		 * insert idx then incr producer.
> +		 */
> +		smp_wmb();
> +		vif->dealloc_prod++;
> +		napi_schedule(&vif->napi);
> +	} while (ubuf);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vif->dealloc_lock, flags);
> +}

Another possible place for improvement is the placing of napi_schedule. 
Now it get called after every fragment, which is probably suboptimal. I 
think it's likely that the vif thread can't finish one dealloc faster 
than one iteration of this while loop.
Another idea is to place it after the while, so it get called only once, 
but in the meantime the thread doesn't have chance to start working on 
the deallocs.
A compromise might be to do it once in the first iteration of the loop, 
and then once after the loop to make sure the thread knows about the 
dealloc.
Thoughts?

Zoli
--
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