On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 08:30:11AM +0900, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 15:24 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 04:13:18AM +0900, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > While we are at it, since we do an order-3 allocation, allow to use > > > all the allocated bytes instead of 16384 to reduce syscalls during > > > large dumps. > > > > > > iproute2 already uses 32KB recvmsg() buffer sizes. > > .... > > > diff --git a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c > > > index > > > 627f898c05b96552318a881ce995ccc3342e1576..62bea4591054820eb516ef016214ee23fe89b6e9 > > > 100644 > > > --- a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c > > > +++ b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c > > > @@ -1832,7 +1832,7 @@ static int netlink_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, > > > struct msghdr *msg, size_t len, > > > /* Record the max length of recvmsg() calls for future allocations */ > > > nlk->max_recvmsg_len = max(nlk->max_recvmsg_len, len); > > > nlk->max_recvmsg_len = min_t(size_t, nlk->max_recvmsg_len, > > > - 16384); > > > + SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(32768)); > > > > sure, it won't stress it more than what it is today, but why increase it? > > iproute2 increased the buffer form 16k to 32k due to 'msg_trunc' which > > I think was due to this issue. If we go with SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(16384) > > we can go back to 16k in iproute2 as well. > > > > Do we have any data to justify that buffer of 32k - skb_shared_info vs 16k > > will meaninfully reduce the number of syscalls? > > We're seeing direct reclaim get hammered due to order-3. > > Not sure whether & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is going to be enough. > > It is. Really. > > > Currently we're testing with SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(16384) and > > ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM. > > It will take another week to make sure SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(32768) is ok. > > imo this optimization is done too soon. > > I'd much more comfortable with SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(16384) value here. > > Well, we _are_ allocating order-3 pages already. > > No need to switch to order-2 pages, when we have the proper fix. > > Note that tcp_sendmsg() does this all the time, and nobody complained > after Shaohua Li fix (commit fb05e7a89f500cf "net: don't wait for > order-3 page allocation") > > Why thousands of sockets could use order-3 pages, but constrain _one_ > (rtnl serializations) iproute2 dump to use tiny blocs exactly ?
Good point. Large tcp_sendmsg() should be stressing mm with order-3 more than netlink polling once a second that some application do with 'ss' or 'tc -s show' > Really there is no point being cautious here. I guess I'm being too paranoid. If we discover issues with SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(32768), we can adjust it later, so Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>
