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]>
---
v3:
1) get rid of inline suggested by Simon Horman
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 c605d171eb2d..60473781933c 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 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
On Tue, 2023-03-07 at 09:56 +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]>
> ---
> v3:
> 1) get rid of inline suggested by Simon Horman
>
> 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 c605d171eb2d..60473781933c 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 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;
I think it's better if you maintain the above statement outside of this
helper: it's a bit confusing that rmem_schedule() actually consumes fwd
memory.
Side note
Cheers,
Paolo
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 10:55 PM Paolo Abeni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2023-03-07 at 09:56 +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]>
> > ---
> > v3:
> > 1) get rid of inline suggested by Simon Horman
> >
> > 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 c605d171eb2d..60473781933c 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 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;
>
> I think it's better if you maintain the above statement outside of this
> helper: it's a bit confusing that rmem_schedule() actually consumes fwd
> memory.
It does make sense.
Thanks,
Jason
>
> Side note
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paolo
>