lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/13] netvm: Set PF_MEMALLOC as appropriate during SKB processing
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:10:48 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:21:57PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:36:50 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> > > index 3871bf6..2d79a20 100644
> > > --- a/net/core/dev.c
> > > +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> > > @@ -3095,6 +3095,27 @@ static void vlan_on_bond_hook(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Limit which protocols can use the PFMEMALLOC reserves to those that are
> > > + * expected to be used for communication with swap.
> > > + */
> > > +static bool skb_pfmemalloc_protocol(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > +{
> > > + if (skb_pfmemalloc(skb))
> > > + switch (skb->protocol) {
> > > + case __constant_htons(ETH_P_ARP):
> > > + case __constant_htons(ETH_P_IP):
> > > + case __constant_htons(ETH_P_IPV6):
> > > + case __constant_htons(ETH_P_8021Q):
> > > + break;
> > > +
> > > + default:
> > > + return false;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return true;
> > > +}
> >
> > This sort of thing really bugs me :-)
> > Neither the comment nor the function name actually describe what the function
> > is doing. The function is checking *2* things.
> > is_pfmemalloc_skb_or_pfmemalloc_protocol()
> > might be a more correct name, but is too verbose.
> >
> > I would prefer the skb_pfmemalloc test were removed from here and ....
> >
> > > + if (!skb_pfmemalloc_protocol(skb))
> > > + goto drop;
> > > +
> >
> > ...added here so this becomes:
> >
> > if (!skb_pfmemalloc(skb) && !skb_pfmemalloc_protocol(skb))
> > goto drop;
> >
> > which actually makes sense.
> >
>
> Moving the check is neater but that check should be
>
> if (skb_pfmemalloc(skb) && !skb_pfmemalloc_protocol(skb))
>
> ? It's only if the skb was allocated from emergency reserves that we
> need to consider dropping it to make way for other packets to be
> received.
>

Correct. I got my Boolean algebra all confused. Sorry 'bout that.

NeilBrown


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-27 01:25    [W:0.063 / U:1.912 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site