[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220516133941.7da6bac7@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 13:39:41 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net: add skb_defer_max sysctl
On Sun, 15 May 2022 21:24:55 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> @@ -6494,16 +6495,21 @@ void skb_attempt_defer_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
> int cpu = skb->alloc_cpu;
> struct softnet_data *sd;
> unsigned long flags;
> + unsigned int defer_max;
> bool kick;
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
> !cpu_online(cpu) ||
> cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()) {
> - __kfree_skb(skb);
> +nodefer: __kfree_skb(skb);
> return;
> }
>
> sd = &per_cpu(softnet_data, cpu);
> + defer_max = READ_ONCE(sysctl_skb_defer_max);
> + if (READ_ONCE(sd->defer_count) >= defer_max)
> + goto nodefer;
> +
> /* We do not send an IPI or any signal.
> * Remote cpu will eventually call skb_defer_free_flush()
> */
> @@ -6513,11 +6519,8 @@ void skb_attempt_defer_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
> WRITE_ONCE(sd->defer_list, skb);
> sd->defer_count++;
>
> - /* kick every time queue length reaches 128.
> - * This condition should hardly be hit under normal conditions,
> - * unless cpu suddenly stopped to receive NIC interrupts.
> - */
> - kick = sd->defer_count == 128;
> + /* Send an IPI every time queue reaches half capacity. */
> + kick = sd->defer_count == (defer_max >> 1);
nit: it will behave a little strangely for defer_max == 1
we'll let one skb get onto the list and free the subsequent
skbs directly but we'll never kick the IPI
Moving the sd->defer_count++; should fix it and have no significant
side effects. I think.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists