2023-03-06 11:58:07

by Jason Xing

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH v2 net-next] udp: introduce __sk_mem_schedule() usage

From: Jason Xing <[email protected]>

Keep the accounting schema consistent across different protocols
with __sk_mem_schedule(). Besides, it adjusts a little bit on how
to calculate forward allocated memory compared to before. After
applied this patch, we could avoid receive path scheduling extra
amount of memory.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <[email protected]>
---
V2:
1) change the title and body message
2) use __sk_mem_schedule() instead suggested by Paolo Abeni
---
net/ipv4/udp.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c
index 9592fe3e444a..21c99087110d 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
@@ -1531,10 +1531,23 @@ static void busylock_release(spinlock_t *busy)
spin_unlock(busy);
}

+static inline int udp_rmem_schedule(struct sock *sk, int size)
+{
+ int delta;
+
+ delta = size - sk->sk_forward_alloc;
+ if (delta > 0 && !__sk_mem_schedule(sk, delta, SK_MEM_RECV))
+ return -ENOBUFS;
+
+ sk->sk_forward_alloc -= size;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
int __udp_enqueue_schedule_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
{
struct sk_buff_head *list = &sk->sk_receive_queue;
- int rmem, delta, amt, err = -ENOMEM;
+ int rmem, err = -ENOMEM;
spinlock_t *busy = NULL;
int size;

@@ -1567,20 +1580,12 @@ int __udp_enqueue_schedule_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
goto uncharge_drop;

spin_lock(&list->lock);
- if (size >= sk->sk_forward_alloc) {
- amt = sk_mem_pages(size);
- delta = amt << PAGE_SHIFT;
- if (!__sk_mem_raise_allocated(sk, delta, amt, SK_MEM_RECV)) {
- err = -ENOBUFS;
- spin_unlock(&list->lock);
- goto uncharge_drop;
- }
-
- sk->sk_forward_alloc += delta;
+ err = udp_rmem_schedule(sk, size);
+ if (err) {
+ spin_unlock(&list->lock);
+ goto uncharge_drop;
}

- sk->sk_forward_alloc -= size;
-
/* no need to setup a destructor, we will explicitly release the
* forward allocated memory on dequeue
*/
--
2.37.3



2023-03-06 14:52:25

by Simon Horman

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] udp: introduce __sk_mem_schedule() usage

On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 07:57:45PM +0800, Jason Xing wrote:
> From: Jason Xing <[email protected]>
>
> Keep the accounting schema consistent across different protocols
> with __sk_mem_schedule(). Besides, it adjusts a little bit on how
> to calculate forward allocated memory compared to before. After
> applied this patch, we could avoid receive path scheduling extra
> amount of memory.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <[email protected]>
> ---
> V2:
> 1) change the title and body message
> 2) use __sk_mem_schedule() instead suggested by Paolo Abeni
> ---
> net/ipv4/udp.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> index 9592fe3e444a..21c99087110d 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> @@ -1531,10 +1531,23 @@ static void busylock_release(spinlock_t *busy)
> spin_unlock(busy);
> }
>
> +static inline int udp_rmem_schedule(struct sock *sk, int size)

nit: I think it's best to drop the inline keyword and
let the compiler figure that out.

2023-03-07 00:26:17

by Jason Xing

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] udp: introduce __sk_mem_schedule() usage

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:51 PM Simon Horman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 07:57:45PM +0800, Jason Xing wrote:
> > From: Jason Xing <[email protected]>
> >
> > Keep the accounting schema consistent across different protocols
> > with __sk_mem_schedule(). Besides, it adjusts a little bit on how
> > to calculate forward allocated memory compared to before. After
> > applied this patch, we could avoid receive path scheduling extra
> > amount of memory.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > V2:
> > 1) change the title and body message
> > 2) use __sk_mem_schedule() instead suggested by Paolo Abeni
> > ---
> > net/ipv4/udp.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > index 9592fe3e444a..21c99087110d 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > @@ -1531,10 +1531,23 @@ static void busylock_release(spinlock_t *busy)
> > spin_unlock(busy);
> > }
> >
> > +static inline int udp_rmem_schedule(struct sock *sk, int size)
>

> nit: I think it's best to drop the inline keyword and
> let the compiler figure that out.

Thanks for the review. I'll do that in the v3 patch.

Jason