[Bridge] [PATCH 07/17] net: convert sock.sk_refcnt from atomic_t to refcount_t
keescook at chromium.org
Tue Mar 21 23:51:13 UTC 2017
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 13:49 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Yeah, this is exactly what I'd like to find as well. Just comparing
>> cycles between refcount implementations, while interesting, doesn't
>> show us real-world performance changes, which is what we need to
>> Is Eric's "20 concurrent 'netperf -t UDP_STREAM'" example (from
>> elsewhere in this email thread) real-world meaningful enough?
> Not at all ;)
> This was targeting the specific change I had in mind for
> ip_idents_reserve(), which is not used by TCP flows.
Okay, I just wanted to check. I didn't think so, but it was the only
example in the thread.
> Unfortunately there is no good test simulating real-world workloads,
> which are mostly using TCP flows.
Sure, but there has to be _something_ that can be used to test to
measure the effects. Without a meaningful test, it's weird to reject a
change for performance reasons.
> Most synthetic tools you can find are not using epoll(), and very often
> hit bottlenecks in other layers.
> It looks like our suggestion to get kernel builds with atomic_inc()
> being exactly an atomic_inc() is not even discussed or implemented.
So, FWIW, I originally tried to make this a CONFIG in the first couple
passes at getting a refcount defense. I would be fine with this, but I
was not able to convince Peter. :) However, things have evolved a lot
since then, so perhaps there are things do be done here.
> Coding this would require less time than running a typical Google kernel
> qualification (roughly one month, thousands of hosts..., days of SWE).
It wasn't the issue of coding time; just that it had been specifically
not wanted. :)
Am I understanding you correctly that you'd want something like:
#define refcount_inc(x) atomic_inc(x)
More information about the Bridge