lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2] ptr_ring: linked list fallback
From
Date


On 2018年02月28日 01:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:29:26AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2018年02月27日 04:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:15:42AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2018年02月26日 09:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> So pointer rings work fine, but they have a problem: make them too small
>>>>> and not enough entries fit. Make them too large and you start flushing
>>>>> your cache and running out of memory.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a new idea of mine: a ring backed by a linked list. Once you run
>>>>> out of ring entries, instead of a drop you fall back on a list with a
>>>>> common lock.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should work well for the case where the ring is typically sized
>>>>> correctly, but will help address the fact that some user try to set e.g.
>>>>> tx queue length to 1000000.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, the idea is that if a user sets a really huge TX queue
>>>>> length, we allocate a ptr_ring which is smaller, and use the backup
>>>>> linked list when necessary to provide the requested TX queue length
>>>>> legitimately.
>>>>>
>>>>> My hope this will move us closer to direction where e.g. fw codel can
>>>>> use ptr rings without locking at all. The API is still very rough, and
>>>>> I really need to take a hard look at lock nesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Compiled only, sending for early feedback/flames.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<mst@redhat.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> changes from v1:
>>>>> - added clarifications by DaveM in the commit log
>>>>> - build fixes
>>>>>
>>>>> include/linux/ptr_ring.h | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>> 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
>>>>> index d72b2e7..8aa8882 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
>>>>> @@ -31,11 +31,18 @@
>>>>> #include <asm/errno.h>
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> +/* entries must start with the following structure */
>>>>> +struct plist {
>>>>> + struct plist *next;
>>>>> + struct plist *last; /* only valid in the 1st entry */
>>>>> +};
>>>> So I wonder whether or not it's better to do this in e.g skb_array
>>>> implementation. Then it can use its own prev/next field.
>>> XDP uses ptr ring directly, doesn't it?
>>>
>> Well I believe the main user for this is qdisc, which use skb array. And we
>> can not use what implemented in this patch directly for sk_buff without some
>> changes on the data structure.
> Why not? skb has next and prev pointers at 1st two fields:
>
> struct sk_buff {
> union {
> struct {
> /* These two members must be first. */
> struct sk_buff *next;
> struct sk_buff *prev;
> ...
> }
>
> so it's just a question of casting to struct plist.

Well, then the casting can only be done in skb_array implementation?

>
> Or we can add plist to a union:
>
>
> struct sk_buff {
> union {
> struct {
> /* These two members must be first. */
> struct sk_buff *next;
> struct sk_buff *prev;
>
> union {
> struct net_device *dev;
> /* Some protocols might use this space to store information,
> * while device pointer would be NULL.
> * UDP receive path is one user.
> */
> unsigned long dev_scratch;
> };
> };
> struct rb_node rbnode; /* used in netem & tcp stack */
> + struct plist plist; /* For use with ptr_ring */
> };
>

This look ok.

>
>> For XDP, we need to embed plist in struct xdp_buff too,
> Right - that's pretty straightforward, isn't it?

Yes, it's not clear to me this is really needed for XDP consider the
lock contention it brings.

Thanks

>> so it looks to me
>> that the better approach is to have separated function for ptr ring and skb
>> array.
>>
>> Thanks

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-28 04:30    [W:0.104 / U:3.856 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site