linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] ptr_ring: linked list fallback
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 10:29:26 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0316016a-717b-9d3f-5aef-dccaf34d0fae@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180226223252-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>



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.

For XDP, we need to embed plist in struct xdp_buff too, so it looks to 
me that the better approach is to have separated function for ptr ring 
and skb array.

Thanks

  reply	other threads:[~2018-02-27  2:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-26  1:17 [RFC PATCH v2] ptr_ring: linked list fallback Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-02-26  3:15 ` Jason Wang
2018-02-26 20:34   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-02-27  2:29     ` Jason Wang [this message]
2018-02-27 17:12       ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-02-28  3:28         ` Jason Wang
2018-02-28  3:39           ` Jason Wang
2018-02-28  4:11             ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-02-28  4:09           ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-02-28  6:28             ` Jason Wang
2018-02-28 14:01               ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-02-28 14:20                 ` Jason Wang
2018-02-28 15:43                   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-03-01  6:41                     ` Jason Wang
2018-02-27 17:53 ` Eric Dumazet
2018-02-27 19:35   ` Michael S. Tsirkin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=0316016a-717b-9d3f-5aef-dccaf34d0fae@redhat.com \
    --to=jasowang@redhat.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).