On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 08:47:55PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:05:06 +0100 Mel Gorman [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:19:33PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:08:06 +0100 Mel Gorman [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

@@ -1578,7 +1589,7 @@ static inline struct sk_buff *netdev_alloc_skb_ip_align(struct net_device *dev,
  */
 static inline struct page *__netdev_alloc_page(struct net_device *dev, gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	return alloc_pages_node(NUMA_NO_NODE, gfp_mask, 0);
+	return alloc_pages_node(NUMA_NO_NODE, gfp_mask | __GFP_MEMALLOC, 0);
 }
 

I'm puzzling a bit over this change.
__netdev_alloc_page appears to be used to get pages to put in ring buffer
for a network card to DMA received packets into.  So it is OK to use
__GFP_MEMALLOC for these allocations providing we mark the resulting skb as
'pfmemalloc' if a reserved page was used.

However I don't see where that marking is done.
I think it should be in skb_fill_page_desc, something like:

  if (page->pfmemalloc)
	skb->pfmemalloc = true;

Is this covered somewhere else that I am missing?

You're not missing anything.

quoted

From the context of __netdev_alloc_page, we do not know if the skb

is suitable for marking pfmemalloc or not (we don't have SKB_ALLOC_RX
flag for example that __alloc_skb has). The reserves are potentially
being dipped into for an unsuitable packet but it gets dropped in
__netif_receive_skb() and the memory is returned. If we mark the skb
pfmemalloc as a result of __netdev_alloc_page using a reserve page, the
packets would not get dropped as expected.

The only code in __netif_receive_skb that seems to drop packets is

+	if (skb_pfmemalloc(skb) && !skb_pfmemalloc_protocol(skb))
+		goto drop;
+

which requires that the skb have pfmemalloc set before it will be dropped.

Yes, I only wanted to drop the packet if we were under pressure
when skb was allocated. If we hit pressure between when skb was
allocated and when __netdev_alloc_page is called, then the PFMEMALLOC
reserves may be used for packet receive unnecessarily but the next skb
allocation that grows slab will have the flag set appropriately. There
is a window during which we use reserves where we did not have to
but it's limited. Again, the throttling if pfmemalloc reserves gets too
depleted comes into play.

Actually ... I'm expecting to find code that says:
   if (skb_pfmalloc(skb) && !sock_flag(sk, SOCK_MEMALLOC))
	drop_packet();

but I cannot find it.  Where is the code that discard pfmalloc packets for
non-memalloc sockets?

I can see similar code in sk_filter but that doesn't drop the packet, it just
avoids filtering it.

hmm, if sk_filter is returning -ENOMEM then things like
sock_queue_rcv_skb() return error and the skb does not get queued and I
expected it to get dropped. What did I miss?

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>