Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: David Miller
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 10:58 pm

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:49:19 +0100


I already plan on doing this, skb->{next,prev} will be replaced with a
list_head and nearly all of the sk_buff_head usage will simply
disappear.  It's a lot of work because every piece of SKB queue
handling code has to be sanitized to only use the interfaces in
linux/skbuff.h and lots of extremely ugly code like the PPP
defragmenter make many non-trivial direct skb->{next,prev}
manipulations.


I have no problem with your struct layout changes, submit it formally.


You absolutely can't do this, as it would break GSO/GRO.  The whole
transmit path is littered with checks of skb->next being NULL for the
purposes of segmentation handling.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock, David Miller, (Wed Mar 18, 6:17 pm)
Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock, Sven-Thorsten Dietrich, (Wed Mar 18, 6:43 pm)
Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock, David Miller, (Wed Mar 18, 6:54 pm)
Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock, Eric Dumazet, (Wed Mar 18, 10:49 pm)
Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock, David Miller, (Wed Mar 18, 10:58 pm)
Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock, Andi Kleen, (Thu Mar 19, 6:45 am)