Re: [net-next PATCH 1/6] net: Split netdev_alloc_frag into __alloc_page_frag and add __napi_alloc_frag
From: Alexander Duyck <hidden>
Date: 2014-12-10 15:21:51
On 12/09/2014 08:16 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Alexander Duyck [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
This patch splits the netdev_alloc_frag function up so that it can be used on one of two page frag pools instead of being fixed on the netdev_alloc_cache. By doing this we can add a NAPI specific function __napi_alloc_frag that accesses a pool that is only used from softirq context. The advantage to this is that we do not need to call local_irq_save/restore which can be a significant savings. I also took the opportunity to refactor the core bits that were placed in __alloc_page_frag. First I updated the allocation to do either a 32K allocation or an order 0 page. This is based on the changes in commmit d9b2938aa where it was found that latencies could be reduced in case ofthanks for explaining that piece of it.quoted
+ struct page *page = NULL; + gfp_t gfp = gfp_mask; + + if (order) { + gfp_mask |= __GFP_COMP | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY; + page = alloc_pages_node(NUMA_NO_NODE, gfp_mask, order); + nc->frag.size = PAGE_SIZE << (page ? order : 0); + } - local_irq_save(flags); - nc = this_cpu_ptr(&netdev_alloc_cache); - if (unlikely(!nc->frag.page)) { + if (unlikely(!page)) + page = alloc_pages_node(NUMA_NO_NODE, gfp, 0);I'm guessing you're not combining this 'if' with above one to keep gfp untouched, so there is a 'warn' when it actually fails 2nd time. Tricky :) Anyway looks good to me and I think I understand it enough to say: Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <redacted>
Thanks. Yes the compiler is smart enough to combine the frag.size and the second check into one if order is non-zero. The other trick here is if order is 0 then that whole block disappears and I don't have to touch frag.size or gfp at all and the code gets much simpler as the *page = NULL falls though and cancels out the 'if' as a compile time check. - Alex