[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aaf8214cf5d73ac5564aec38e67973ef47c45b5e.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 22:21:29 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Alexander H Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: skb: introduce and use a single page frag
cache
On Wed, 2022-09-21 at 21:33 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-09-21 at 11:11 -0700, Alexander H Duyck wrote:
[...]
>
> > > {
> > > struct napi_alloc_cache *nc;
> > > struct sk_buff *skb;
> > > + bool pfmemalloc;
> > > void *data;
> > >
> > > DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq());
> > > len += NET_SKB_PAD + NET_IP_ALIGN;
> > >
> > > + /* When the small frag allocator is available, prefer it over kmalloc
> > > + * for small fragments
> > > + */
> > > + if (NAPI_HAS_SMALL_PAGE_FRAG && len <= SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(1024)) {
> > > + nc = this_cpu_ptr(&napi_alloc_cache);
> > > +
> > > + if (sk_memalloc_socks())
> > > + gfp_mask |= __GFP_MEMALLOC;
> > > +
> > > + /* we are artificially inflating the allocation size, but
> > > + * that is not as bad as it may look like, as:
> > > + * - 'len' less then GRO_MAX_HEAD makes little sense
> > > + * - larger 'len' values lead to fragment size above 512 bytes
> > > + * as per NAPI_HAS_SMALL_PAGE_FRAG definition
> > > + * - kmalloc would use the kmalloc-1k slab for such values
> > > + */
> > > + len = SZ_1K;
> > > +
> > > + data = page_frag_alloc_1k(&nc->page_small, gfp_mask);
> > > + pfmemalloc = nc->page_small.pfmemalloc;
> > > + goto check_data;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > It might be better to place this code further down as a branch rather
> > than having to duplicate things up here such as the __GFP_MEMALLOC
> > setting.
> >
> > You could essentially just put the lines getting the napi_alloc_cache
> > and adding the shared info after the sk_memalloc_socks() check. Then it
> > could just be an if/else block either calling page_frag_alloc or your
> > page_frag_alloc_1k.
>
> I thought about that option, but I did not like it much because adds a
> conditional in the fast-path for small-size allocation, and the
> duplicate code is very little.
>
> I can change the code that way, if you have strong opinion in that
> regards.
Thinking again about the above, I now belive that what you suggest is
the right thing to do: my patch ignores the requested
__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM and GFP_DMA flags for small allocation - we always
need to fallback to kmalloc() when the caller ask for them.
TL;DR: I'll move the page_frag_alloc_1k() call below in v2.
Thanks!
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists