On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 12:12 PM Xie He wrote:
>
> This is exactly what I'm talking about. "skb_pfmemalloc_protocol"
> cannot guarantee pfmemalloc skbs are not delivered to unrelated
> protocols, because "__netif_receive_skb" will sometimes treat
> pfmemalloc skbs as normal skbs.
> I'm not sure
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 4:50 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On 4/9/21 12:14 PM, Xie He wrote:
>
> Then simply copy the needed logic.
No, there's no such thing as "sockets" in some of the protocols. There
is simply no way to copy "the needed logic".
> > Also, I think this is a problem in
On 4/9/21 12:14 PM, Xie He wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:04 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> Note that pfmemalloc skbs are normally dropped in sk_filter_trim_cap()
>>
>> Simply make sure your protocol use it.
>
> It seems "sk_filter_trim_cap" needs an "struct sock" argument. Some of
> my
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:04 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> Note that pfmemalloc skbs are normally dropped in sk_filter_trim_cap()
>
> Simply make sure your protocol use it.
It seems "sk_filter_trim_cap" needs an "struct sock" argument. Some of
my protocols act like a middle layer to another protocol
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 2:58 AM Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 02:14:12AM -0700, Xie He wrote:
> >
> > Do you mean that at the time "sk_memalloc_socks()" changes from "true"
> > to "false", there would be no in-flight skbs currently being received,
> > and all network communications
On 4/9/21 11:14 AM, Xie He wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:44 AM Mel Gorman wrote:
>>
>> That would imply that the tap was communicating with a swap device to
>> allocate a pfmemalloc skb which shouldn't happen. Furthermore, it would
>> require the swap device to be deactivated while
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 02:14:12AM -0700, Xie He wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:44 AM Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > That would imply that the tap was communicating with a swap device to
> > allocate a pfmemalloc skb which shouldn't happen. Furthermore, it would
> > require the swap device to be
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:44 AM Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> That would imply that the tap was communicating with a swap device to
> allocate a pfmemalloc skb which shouldn't happen. Furthermore, it would
> require the swap device to be deactivated while pfmemalloc skbs still
> existed. Have you
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:33:24AM -0700, Xie He wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 12:30 AM Mel Gorman
> wrote:
> >
> > Under what circumstances do you expect sk_memalloc_socks() to be false
> > and skb_pfmemalloc() to be true that would cause a problem?
>
> For example, if at the time the skb is
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 12:30 AM Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> Under what circumstances do you expect sk_memalloc_socks() to be false
> and skb_pfmemalloc() to be true that would cause a problem?
For example, if at the time the skb is allocated,
"sk_memalloc_socks()" was true, then the skb might be
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 11:52:01AM -0700, Xie He wrote:
> Hi Mel Gorman,
>
> I may have found a problem in pfmemalloc skb handling in
> net/core/dev.c. I see there are "if" conditions checking for
> "sk_memalloc_socks() && skb_pfmemalloc(skb)", and when the condition
> is true, the skb is handled
11 matches
Mail list logo
