netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 9/9] mlx4: add page recycling in receive path

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: <1486a0fa-b098-6990-2246-3a634dfd0a61@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:27:05 +0200
From:   Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Brenden Blanco <bblanco@...mgrid.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 9/9] mlx4: add page recycling in receive path



On 07/02/2017 6:34 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/02/2017 5:02 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> Same technique than some Intel drivers, for arches where PAGE_SIZE = 4096
>>>
>>> In most cases, pages are reused because they were consumed
>>> before we could loop around the RX ring.
>> This might not be true when multiple streams are handled in the same ring.
>> As the process time in stack will be longer.
>> We will test this scenario as well.
> Sure thing. I already did ;)
>
> I had a local patch adding a new "ethtool -S ... | grep
> rx_page_allocs"  counter.
>
> I could probably add it to the series.
I'd always like to have this kind of counters. They make performance 
analysis much easier.
>    (I noticed that
> rx_alloc_failed was a dead counter)
Yes indeed... I'll take care of it. Thanks!
>
> Thanks.