[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55BFD4DF.30703@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 16:53:51 -0400
From: Jason Baron <jasonbaron0@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/6] net: fix sk_mem_reclaim_partial()
On 05/15/2015 03:39 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> sk_mem_reclaim_partial() goal is to ensure each socket has
> one SK_MEM_QUANTUM forward allocation. This is needed both for
> performance and better handling of memory pressure situations in
> follow up patches.
>
> SK_MEM_QUANTUM is currently a page, but might be reduced to 4096 bytes
> as some arches have 64KB pages.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> ---
> include/net/sock.h | 6 +++---
> net/core/sock.c | 9 +++++----
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> index d882f4c8e438..4581a60636f8 100644
> --- a/include/net/sock.h
> +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> @@ -1368,7 +1368,7 @@ static inline struct inode *SOCK_INODE(struct socket *socket)
> * Functions for memory accounting
> */
> int __sk_mem_schedule(struct sock *sk, int size, int kind);
> -void __sk_mem_reclaim(struct sock *sk);
> +void __sk_mem_reclaim(struct sock *sk, int amount);
>
> #define SK_MEM_QUANTUM ((int)PAGE_SIZE)
> #define SK_MEM_QUANTUM_SHIFT ilog2(SK_MEM_QUANTUM)
> @@ -1409,7 +1409,7 @@ static inline void sk_mem_reclaim(struct sock *sk)
> if (!sk_has_account(sk))
> return;
> if (sk->sk_forward_alloc >= SK_MEM_QUANTUM)
> - __sk_mem_reclaim(sk);
> + __sk_mem_reclaim(sk, sk->sk_forward_alloc);
> }
>
> static inline void sk_mem_reclaim_partial(struct sock *sk)
> @@ -1417,7 +1417,7 @@ static inline void sk_mem_reclaim_partial(struct sock *sk)
> if (!sk_has_account(sk))
> return;
> if (sk->sk_forward_alloc > SK_MEM_QUANTUM)
> - __sk_mem_reclaim(sk);
> + __sk_mem_reclaim(sk, sk->sk_forward_alloc - 1);
> }
>
Hi,
Was just looking at this again - this doesn't ensure the SK_MEM_QUANTUM
minimum as the comment suggests- should it be:
_sk_mem_reclaim(sk, sk->sk_forward_alloc - SK_MEM_QUANTUM);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or are you just trying to make sure its not 0?
Thanks,
-Jason
--
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