On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Amritha Nambiar
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Change 'skc_tx_queue_mapping' field in sock_common structure from
>> 'int' to 'unsigned short' type with 0 indicating unset and
>> a positive queue value being set. This way it is consistent with
>> the queue_mapping field in the sk_buff. This will also accommodate
>> adding a new 'unsigned short' field in sock_common in the next
>> patch for rx_queue_mapping.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Amritha Nambiar <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> include/net/sock.h | 10 ++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
>> index b3b7541..009fd30 100644
>> --- a/include/net/sock.h
>> +++ b/include/net/sock.h
>> @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ struct sock_common {
>> struct hlist_node skc_node;
>> struct hlist_nulls_node skc_nulls_node;
>> };
>> - int skc_tx_queue_mapping;
>> + unsigned short skc_tx_queue_mapping;
>> union {
>> int skc_incoming_cpu;
>> u32 skc_rcv_wnd;
>> @@ -1681,17 +1681,19 @@ static inline int sk_receive_skb(struct sock *sk,
>> struct sk_buff *skb,
>>
>> static inline void sk_tx_queue_set(struct sock *sk, int tx_queue)
>> {
>> - sk->sk_tx_queue_mapping = tx_queue;
>> + /* sk_tx_queue_mapping accept only upto a 16-bit value */
>> + WARN_ON((unsigned short)tx_queue > USHRT_MAX);
>
>
> Shouldn't this be USHRT_MAX - 1 ?
Actually just a ">=" would probably do as well.
>
>> + sk->sk_tx_queue_mapping = tx_queue + 1;
>> }
>>
>> static inline void sk_tx_queue_clear(struct sock *sk)
>> {
>> - sk->sk_tx_queue_mapping = -1;
>>
>> + sk->sk_tx_queue_mapping = 0;
>
>
> I think it's slightly better to define a new constant like NO_QUEUE_MAPPING
> to be USHRT_MAX. That avoids needing to do the arithmetic every time the
> value is accessed.
>>
>> }
>>
>> static inline int sk_tx_queue_get(const struct sock *sk)
>> {
>> - return sk ? sk->sk_tx_queue_mapping : -1;
>> + return sk ? sk->sk_tx_queue_mapping - 1 : -1;
>
>
> Doesn't the comparison in __netdev_pick_tx need to be simultaneously changed
> for this?
This doesn't change the result. It was still -1 if the queue mapping
is not set. It was just initialized to 0 instead of to -1 so we have
to perform the operation to get there.
Also in regards to the comment above about needing an extra operation
I am not sure it makes much difference.
In the case of us starting with 0 as a reserved value I think the
instruction count should be about the same. We move the unsigned short
into an unsigned in, then decrement, and if the value is non-negative
we can assume it is valid. Although maybe I should double check the
code to make certain it is doing what I thought it was supposed to be
doing.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> }
>>
>> static inline void sk_set_socket(struct sock *sk, struct socket *sock)
>>
>
