From: Hideo AOKI [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:38:47 -0500
This patch adds UDP memory usage accounting in IPv4.
Send buffer accounting is performed by IP layer, because skbuff is
allocated in the layer.
Receive buffer is charged, when the buffer successfully received.
David Miller wrote:
From: Hideo AOKI [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:38:47 -0500
This patch adds UDP memory usage accounting in IPv4.
We can't accept these changes, even once the other issues
are fixed, until IPV6 is supported as well.
It's pointless to support proper UDP
This patch adds UDP memory usage accounting in IPv4.
Send buffer accounting is performed by IP layer, because skbuff is
allocated in the layer.
Receive buffer is charged, when the buffer successfully received.
Destructor of the buffer does uncharging and reclaiming, when the
buffer is freed. To
This patch adds UDP memory usage accounting in IPv4.
Send buffer accounting is performed by IP layer, because skbuff is
allocated in the layer.
Receive buffer is charged, when the buffer successfully received.
Destructor of the buffer does un charging and reclaiming, when the
buffer is freed.
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 11:28:34PM -0500, Hideo AOKI wrote:
1. Using sk_forward_alloc and adding socket lock
UDP already uses a socket lock to send message. However, it doesn't
use the lock to receive message. I wonder if we can also use the
lock when sk_forward_alloc is updated in
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 11:28:34PM -0500, Hideo AOKI wrote:
1. Using sk_forward_alloc and adding socket lock
UDP already uses a socket lock to send message. However, it doesn't
use the lock to receive message. I wonder if we can also use the
lock when
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 07:14:26PM -0500, Hideo AOKI wrote:
Let me try to use sk_forward_alloc at first, while percpu storage
is an interesting idea.
Actually I don't think sk_forward_alloc would work for UDP because
it runs lockless (unlike TCP which is run under a the
Eric Dumazet wrote:
Herbert Xu a écrit :
However, I'm still a little concerned about the effect of two more
atomic op's per packet that we're adding here. Hang on a sec, that
should've been Dave's line since atomic ops are cheap on x86 :)
But seriously, it's not so much that we have two
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 07:14:26PM -0500, Hideo AOKI wrote:
Let me try to use sk_forward_alloc at first, while percpu storage
is an interesting idea.
Actually I don't think sk_forward_alloc would work for UDP because
it runs lockless (unlike TCP which is run under a the socket lock).
So it's
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:53:36PM -0500, Hideo AOKI wrote:
+/**
+ * __skb_queue_purge_and_sub_memory_allocated
+ * - empty a list and subtruct memory allocation counter
+ * @sk: sk
+ * @list: list to empty
+ * Delete all buffers on an sk_buff list and subtruct the
+ *
Herbert Xu a écrit :
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:53:36PM -0500, Hideo AOKI wrote:
+/**
+ * __skb_queue_purge_and_sub_memory_allocated
+ * - empty a list and subtruct memory allocation counter
+ * @sk: sk
+ * @list: list to empty
+ * Delete all buffers on an sk_buff
On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 02:08:31PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
I agree adding yet another atomics ops is a big problem.
Another idea, coupled with recent work on percpu storage done by Christoph
Lameter, would be to use kind of a percpu_counter :
Yes that's an interesting idea.
We dont
This patch adds UDP memory usage accounting in IPv4.
Cc: Satoshi Oshima [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signed-off-by: Hideo Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
af_inet.c | 30 +-
ip_output.c | 49 ++---
udp.c | 16
13 matches
Mail list logo
