Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1630492744-60396-1-git-send-email-linyunsheng@huawei.com> <ba7a0854-6841-2ebc-c329-4c13f1a997df@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <ba7a0854-6841-2ebc-c329-4c13f1a997df@huawei.com>
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 18:13:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CANn89i+X_K2A1kepmLh1ySC_UE=+ov=Cya2mtW7R0LT68kyb2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: add tcp_tx_skb_cache_key checking in sk_stream_alloc_skb()
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linuxarm@openeuler.org,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 5:47 PM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On 2021/9/1 18:39, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > Since tcp_tx_skb_cache is disabled by default in:
> > commit 0b7d7f6b2208 ("tcp: add tcp_tx_skb_cache sysctl")
> >
> > Add tcp_tx_skb_cache_key checking in sk_stream_alloc_skb() to
> > avoid possible branch-misses.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > Also, the sk->sk_tx_skb_cache may be both changed by allocation
> > and freeing side, I assume there may be some implicit protection
> > here too, such as the NAPI protection for rx?
>
> Hi, Eric
>    Is there any implicit protection for sk->sk_tx_skb_cache?
> As my understanding, sk_stream_alloc_skb() seems to be protected
> by lock_sock(), and the sk_wmem_free_skb() seems to be mostly
> happening in NAPI polling for TCP(when ack packet is received)
> without lock_sock(), so it seems there is no protection here?
>

Please look again.
This is protected by socket lock of course.
Otherwise sk_mem_uncharge() would be very broken, sk->sk_forward_alloc
is not an atomic field.

TCP stack has no direct relation  with NAPI.
It can run over loopback interface, no NAPI there.