mirror of
https://github.com/edk2-porting/linux-next.git
synced 2024-12-14 16:23:51 +08:00
tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets
Everything should now be ready to finally allow SYN packets processing without holding listener lock. Tested: 3.5 Mpps SYNFLOOD. Plenty of cpu cycles available. Next bottleneck is the refcount taken on listener, that could be avoided if we remove SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU strict semantic for listeners, and use regular RCU. 13.18% [kernel] [k] __inet_lookup_listener 9.61% [kernel] [k] tcp_conn_request 8.16% [kernel] [k] sha_transform 5.30% [kernel] [k] inet_reqsk_alloc 4.22% [kernel] [k] sock_put 3.74% [kernel] [k] tcp_make_synack 2.88% [kernel] [k] ipt_do_table 2.56% [kernel] [k] memcpy_erms 2.53% [kernel] [k] sock_wfree 2.40% [kernel] [k] tcp_v4_rcv 2.08% [kernel] [k] fib_table_lookup 1.84% [kernel] [k] tcp_openreq_init_rwin Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
parent
92d6f176fd
commit
e994b2f0fb
@ -1355,7 +1355,7 @@ static struct sock *tcp_v4_cookie_check(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* The socket must have it's spinlock held when we get
|
||||
* here.
|
||||
* here, unless it is a TCP_LISTEN socket.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* We have a potential double-lock case here, so even when
|
||||
* doing backlog processing we use the BH locking scheme.
|
||||
@ -1619,9 +1619,15 @@ process:
|
||||
if (sk_filter(sk, skb))
|
||||
goto discard_and_relse;
|
||||
|
||||
sk_incoming_cpu_update(sk);
|
||||
skb->dev = NULL;
|
||||
|
||||
if (sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN) {
|
||||
ret = tcp_v4_do_rcv(sk, skb);
|
||||
goto put_and_return;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
sk_incoming_cpu_update(sk);
|
||||
|
||||
bh_lock_sock_nested(sk);
|
||||
tcp_sk(sk)->segs_in += max_t(u16, 1, skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_segs);
|
||||
ret = 0;
|
||||
@ -1636,6 +1642,7 @@ process:
|
||||
}
|
||||
bh_unlock_sock(sk);
|
||||
|
||||
put_and_return:
|
||||
sock_put(sk);
|
||||
|
||||
return ret;
|
||||
|
@ -1161,7 +1161,7 @@ out:
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* The socket must have it's spinlock held when we get
|
||||
* here.
|
||||
* here, unless it is a TCP_LISTEN socket.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* We have a potential double-lock case here, so even when
|
||||
* doing backlog processing we use the BH locking scheme.
|
||||
@ -1415,9 +1415,15 @@ process:
|
||||
if (sk_filter(sk, skb))
|
||||
goto discard_and_relse;
|
||||
|
||||
sk_incoming_cpu_update(sk);
|
||||
skb->dev = NULL;
|
||||
|
||||
if (sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN) {
|
||||
ret = tcp_v6_do_rcv(sk, skb);
|
||||
goto put_and_return;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
sk_incoming_cpu_update(sk);
|
||||
|
||||
bh_lock_sock_nested(sk);
|
||||
tcp_sk(sk)->segs_in += max_t(u16, 1, skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_segs);
|
||||
ret = 0;
|
||||
@ -1432,6 +1438,7 @@ process:
|
||||
}
|
||||
bh_unlock_sock(sk);
|
||||
|
||||
put_and_return:
|
||||
sock_put(sk);
|
||||
return ret ? -1 : 0;
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user