[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bc168824-25dd-7541-1a34-38b1a3c00489@os.amperecomputing.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:08:18 -0800 (PST)
From: "Lameter, Christopher" <cl@...amperecomputing.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
cc: Adam Li <adamli@...amperecomputing.com>, corbet@....net,
davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
willemb@...gle.com, yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn, atenart@...nel.org,
kuniyu@...zon.com, wuyun.abel@...edance.com, leitao@...ian.org,
alexander@...alicyn.com, dhowells@...hat.com, paulmck@...nel.org,
joel.granados@...il.com, urezki@...il.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, patches@...erecomputing.com,
shijie@...amperecomputing.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: make SK_MEMORY_PCPU_RESERV tunable
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> sk_prot->memory_allocated points to global atomic variable:
>> atomic_long_t tcp_memory_allocated ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>>
>> If increasing the per-cpu cache size from 1MB to e.g. 16MB,
>> changes to sk->sk_prot->memory_allocated can be further reduced.
>> Performance may be improved on system with many cores.
>
> This looks good, do you have any performance numbers to share ?
>
> On a host with 384 threads, 384*16 -> 6 GB of memory.
Those things also come with corresponding memories of a couple of TB...
> With this kind of use, we might need a shrinker...
Yes. No point of keeping the buffers around if the core stops doing
networking. But to be done at times when there is no contention please.
Isnt there something like a timeout for skbs in the network stack already?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists