Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: forbid direct reclaim if MSG_DONTWAIT is
 set in send path
To:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1539086718-4119-1-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
 <1539086718-4119-2-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
 <CANn89iL1BMCx3Mbsj3TijR3Srjji95q86px0k98r7JYJbwLzcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALOAHbBwGAqia_2xJSNkaX7TzSPN89bRz71qHRH43FtbwNTP6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANn89iKe4vETuo-FBZ8ZrovJGiimBbhbzBnbqawX_h0LA+8PoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANn89i+-g5DEnrv0DSCsMq3fXo35mAaOmXvf1Tr22Ybif1OV0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALOAHbBKabLHkLk4SEU8cRV3JZoTbe9TUiLd9RCp2nOx7Y0fPA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1bda85f1-e369-b95e-6f50-a7f795634d03@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:44:05 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALOAHbBKabLHkLk4SEU8cRV3JZoTbe9TUiLd9RCp2nOx7Y0fPA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 10/09/2018 06:30 PM, Yafang Shao wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 11:38 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:58 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> We do not add bloat in the kernel if no application is ever going to
>>> use it, especially in the TCP fast path.
>>>
>>
>> BTW, are you willing to change all memory allocations in the kernel as well ?
>>
>> Let say an application is using a system call providing a pathname
>> (open(), stat(), ...), how this system call
>> is going to ask the kernel for no direct reclaim ?
>>
>> Even allocating a socket with socket() or accept() has no ability to
>> avoid direct reclaim.
>>
>> So tcp_sendmsg() is only the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> If we can really find a solution that is good enough to hanlde direct
> reclaim in tcp_sendmsg,
> we could also implement it in other syscalls.
> Unexpected latency is hateful.

We have thousands of other places in the kernel, I want to find a generic solution,
not patch all the places one by one.

So come back when you have something more generic, and once applications have a way
to handle gracefully (without calling sendmsg() in infinite loop ...)
to these memory allocation issues.

How is EPOLLOUT going to be generated ?