MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230306115745.87401-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> <ZAX98D91HvKrJBCO@corigine.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZAX98D91HvKrJBCO@corigine.com>
From:   Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 08:25:10 +0800
Message-ID: <CAL+tcoDAeTznH_EDdaM5dA4N5U-KhhnnvrxOCCAceMOdvGa+MA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] udp: introduce __sk_mem_schedule() usage
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
Cc:     willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        dsahern@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:51=E2=80=AFPM Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine=
.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 07:57:45PM +0800, Jason Xing wrote:
> > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> >
> > 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/20230221110344.82818-1-kerneljasonxi=
ng@gmail.com/
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> > ---
> > 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