[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1460393634.6473.560.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:53:54 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Brenden Blanco <bblanco@...mgrid.com>,
lsf@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Lsf] [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] Generic page-pool recycle
facility?
On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 18:19 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> Drivers also do tricks where they fallback to smaller order pages. E.g.
> lookup function mlx4_alloc_pages(). I've tried to simulate that
> function here:
> https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/blob/91d323fc53/kernel/mm/bench/page_bench01.c#L69
We use order-0 pages on mlx4 at Google, as order-3 pages are very
dangerous for some kind of attacks...
An out of order TCP packet can hold an order-3 pages, while claiming to
use 1.5 KBvia skb->truesize.
order-0 only pages allow the page recycle trick used by Intel driver,
and we hardly see any page allocations in typical workloads.
While order-3 pages are 'nice' for friendly datacenter kind of traffic,
they also are a higher risk on hosts connected to the wild Internet.
Maybe I should upstream this patch ;)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists