Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> writes:
> From: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com>
>
> If tcp_send_ack() can not allocate skb, we properly handle this
> and setup a timer to try later.
>
> Use __GFP_NOWARN to avoid polluting syslog in the case host is
> under memory pressure, so that pertinent messages are not lost under
> a flood of useless information.
>
> sk_gfp_atomic() can use its gfp_mask argument (all callers currently
> were using GFP_ATOMIC before this patch)
>
> Note that when tcp_transmit_skb() is called with clone_it set to false,
> we do not attempt memory allocations, so can pass a 0 gfp_mask, which
> most compilers can emit faster than a non zero value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com>
> ---
> include/net/sock.h | 2 +-
> net/ipv4/tcp_output.c | 12 +++++++-----
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> index 7f89e4ba18d1..ead514332ae8 100644
> --- a/include/net/sock.h
> +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> @@ -776,7 +776,7 @@ static inline int sk_memalloc_socks(void)
>
> static inline gfp_t sk_gfp_atomic(const struct sock *sk, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> - return GFP_ATOMIC | (sk->sk_allocation & __GFP_MEMALLOC);
> + return gfp_mask | (sk->sk_allocation & __GFP_MEMALLOC);
> }
>
Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here, but with a name like
sk_gfp_atomic, would it make sense to keep the GFP_ATOMIC mask as well?
Otherwise, what is the _atomic is saying?
Thanks,
Aaron
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
