[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <324c9844-1ecb-60c0-c976-16627dff1815@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2022 16:01:23 +0300
From: Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@...il.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>,
Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Shrink sock.sk_err sk_err_soft to u16 from int
On 7/5/22 13:31, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-07-03 at 23:06 +0300, Leonard Crestez wrote:
>> These fields hold positive errno values which are limited by
>> ERRNO_MAX=4095 so 16 bits is more than enough.
>>
>> They are also always positive; setting them to a negative errno value
>> can result in falsely reporting a successful read/write of incorrect
>> size.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@...il.com>
>> ---
>> include/net/sock.h | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> I ran some relatively complex tests without noticing issues but some corner
>> case where this breaks might exist.
>
> Could you please explain in length the rationale behind this change?
>
> Note that this additionally changes the struct sock binary layout,
> which in turn in quite relevant for high speed data transfer.
The rationale is that shrinking structs is almost always better. I know
that due to various roundings it likely won't actually impact memory
consumption unless accumulated with other size reductions.
These sk_err fields don't seem to be in a particularly "hot" area so I
don't think it will impact performance.
My expectation is that after a socket error is reported the socket will
likely be closed so that there will be very few writes to this field.
--
Regards,
Leonard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists