Message-ID: <4A37A058.1030701@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:38:32 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
CC: mingo@elte.hu, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT]: Networking
References: <20090616094813.GA1686@elte.hu>	<20090616.025659.224075454.davem@davemloft.net>	<20090616101132.GA28204@elte.hu> <20090616.033554.102149558.davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20090616.033554.102149558.davem@davemloft.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1839
Lines: 50

David Miller a ?crit :
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:11:32 +0200
> 
>> sure, here you go (i also added a stack dump, just in case it's some 
>> kernel-internal socket open):
>>
>>  [ifconfig:3516]: Creates X25 socket.
>>
>> so plain ifconfig. Part of the ~1.5 years old net-tools-1.60-84.fc8.
> 
> Ok, ifconfig seems to open one of every socket type when it starts up.
> That explains why an X25 socket is openned and then closed.
> 
> Now the question is why is the X25 socket released by a timer?  This
> should only happen if some socket memory is still pending in the
> socket buffers.
> 
> Wait, I know why this is triggering now.  It's Eric Dumazet's SKB
> accounting optimizations.
> 
> So, I'll fix the X25 timer bug.  It's always been there, but
> beforehand this deferred-via-timer x25 socket destruction path almost
> never triggers.  So we never saw it.  Now it happens every time.
> 
> Eric can you sniff around and see what you think about this unforseen
> (at least for me) consequence of your changes?  Socket layers that use
> the current sk_wmem_alloc/sk_rmem_alloc value at destroy time to
> determine if a socket can be killed immediately, or need to be killed
> later via timer, will always see that dummy one byte allocation you
> now put there.
> 
> Can you look into that?
> 
> Thanks.


Sure I can look if a layer uses sk_wmem_alloc as you describe.

(I take you refer to commit 2b85a34e911bf483c27cfdd124aeb1605145dc80 :
net: No more expensive sock_hold()/sock_put() on each tx)

So there is no impact for sk_rmem_alloc AFAIK

Thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/