Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:10:07 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] net: skbuff: allocate the fclone in the current NUMA node | From | Alexander Lobakin <> |
| |
From: Huang Shijie <shijie@os.amperecomputing.com> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:18:04 +0800
> The current code passes NUMA_NO_NODE to __alloc_skb(), we found > it may creates fclone SKB in remote NUMA node. > > So use numa_node_id() to limit the allocation to current NUMA node. > > Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie <shijie@os.amperecomputing.com> > --- > include/linux/skbuff.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h > index 2dde34c29203..ebc42b2604ad 100644 > --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h > +++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h > @@ -1343,7 +1343,7 @@ static inline bool skb_fclone_busy(const struct sock *sk, > static inline struct sk_buff *alloc_skb_fclone(unsigned int size, > gfp_t priority) > { > - return __alloc_skb(size, priority, SKB_ALLOC_FCLONE, NUMA_NO_NODE); > + return __alloc_skb(size, priority, SKB_ALLOC_FCLONE, numa_node_id());
Because it tries to defragment the memory and pick an optimal node.
__alloc_skb() and skb clones aren't anyway something very hotpathish, do you have any particular perf numbers and/or usecases where %NUMA_NO_NODE really hurts?
> } > > struct sk_buff *skb_morph(struct sk_buff *dst, struct sk_buff *src);
Thanks, Olek
| |