[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191019211856.GR18794@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:18:56 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix sk_page_frag() recursion from memory reclaim
Hello,
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 11:15:28AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> It seems compiler generates better code with :
>
> diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> index ab905c4b1f0efd42ebdcae333b3f0a2c7c1b2248..56de6ac99f0952bd0bc003353c094ce3a5a852f4 100644
> --- a/include/net/sock.h
> +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> @@ -2238,7 +2238,8 @@ struct sk_buff *sk_stream_alloc_skb(struct sock *sk, int size, gfp_t gfp,
> */
> static inline struct page_frag *sk_page_frag(struct sock *sk)
> {
> - if (gfpflags_allow_blocking(sk->sk_allocation))
> + if (likely((sk->sk_allocation & (__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | __GFP_MEMALLOC)) ==
> + __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM))
> return ¤t->task_frag;
>
> return &sk->sk_frag;
>
>
> WDYT ?
Whatever works is fine by me. gfpflags_allow_blocking() is clearer
than testing __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM directly tho. Maybe a better way is
introducing a new gfpflags_ helper?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists