[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140318082358.60fc414c@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:23:58 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, mpm@...enic.com,
satyam.sharma@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] net: Free skbs from irqs when possible.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:27:52 -0700
ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Add a test skb_irq_freeable to report when it is safe to free a skb
> from irq context.
>
> It is not safe to free an skb from irq context when:
> - The skb has a destructor as some skb destructors call local_bh_disable
> or spin_lock_bh.
> - There is xfrm state as __xfrm_state_destroy calls spin_lock_bh.
> - There is netfilter conntrack state as destroy_conntrack calls
> spin_lock_bh.
> - If there is a refcounted dst entry on the skb, as __dst_free
> calls spin_lock_bh.
> - If there is a frag_list, which could be a list of any skbs.
> Otherwise it appears safe to free a skb from interrupt context.
>
> - Update the warning in skb_releae_head_state to warn about freeing
> skb's in the wrong context.
>
> - Update __dev_kfree_skb_irq to free all skbs that it can immediately
>
> - Kill zap_completion_queue because there is no point going through
> a queue of packets that are not safe to free and looking for packets
> that are safe to free.
>
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Why introduce the additional complexity for so little gain?
It looks like you are only optimizing for the corner case where netpoll
is cleaning up on Tx.
-1
--
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