On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 09:27:07AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 16:12 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On 12/17/2013 08:16 AM, Michael Dalton wrote:
> > > The virtio-net driver currently uses netdev_alloc_frag() for GFP_ATOMIC
> > > mergeable rx buffer allocations. This commit migrates virtio-net to use
> > > per-receive queue page frags for GFP_ATOMIC allocation. This change unifies
> > > mergeable rx buffer memory allocation, which now will use skb_refill_frag()
> > > for both atomic and GFP-WAIT buffer allocations.
> > >
> > > To address fragmentation concerns, if after buffer allocation there
> > > is too little space left in the page frag to allocate a subsequent
> > > buffer, the remaining space is added to the current allocated buffer
> > > so that the remaining space can be used to store packet data.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Dalton <mwdalton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > index c51a988..d38d130 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > @@ -78,6 +78,9 @@ struct receive_queue {
> > > /* Chain pages by the private ptr. */
> > > struct page *pages;
> > >
> > > + /* Page frag for GFP_ATOMIC packet buffer allocation. */
> > > + struct page_frag atomic_frag;
> > > +
> > > /* RX: fragments + linear part + virtio header */
> > > struct scatterlist sg[MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 2];
> > >
> > > @@ -127,9 +130,9 @@ struct virtnet_info {
> > > struct mutex config_lock;
> > >
> > > /* Page_frag for GFP_KERNEL packet buffer allocation when we run
> > > - * low on memory.
> > > + * low on memory. May sleep.
> > > */
> > > - struct page_frag alloc_frag;
> > > + struct page_frag sleep_frag;
> >
> > Any reason to use two different page_frag consider only
> > skb_page_frag_refill() is used?
>
> One is used under process context, where preemption and GFP_KERNEL are
> allowed.
Yes but it is always used with napi disabled.
> One is used from softirq context and GFP_ATOMIC.
This one is used only under napi.
> You cant share a common
> page_frag.
So there isn't a conflict with respect to locking.
Is it problematic to use same page_frag with both GFP_ATOMIC and with
GFP_KERNEL? If yes why?
> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
