| Message ID | 93ccb49b7f037461ef436a50b907185744b093d8.1474477902.git.pabeni@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 19:23 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > Avoid usage of common memory accounting functions, since > the logic is pretty much different. > > To account for forward allocation, a couple of new atomic_t > members are added to udp_sock: 'mem_alloced' and 'mem_freed'. > The current forward allocation is estimated as 'mem_alloced' > minus 'mem_freed' minus 'sk_rmem_alloc'. > > When the forward allocation can't cope with the packet to be > enqueued, 'mem_alloced' is incremented by the packet size > rounded-up to the next SK_MEM_QUANTUM. > After a dequeue, we try to partially reclaim of the forward > allocated memory rounded down to an SK_MEM_QUANTUM and > 'mem_freed' is increased by that amount. > sk->sk_forward_alloc is set after each allocated/freed memory > update, to the currently estimated forward allocation, without > any lock or protection. > This value is updated/maintained only to expose some > semi-reasonable value to the eventual reader, and is guaranteed > to be 0 at socket destruction time. > > The above needs custom memory reclaiming on shutdown, provided > by the udp_destruct_sock() helper, which completely reclaim > the allocated forward memory. > > Helpers are provided for skb free, consume and purge, respecting > the above constraints. > > The socket lock is still used to protect the updates to sk_peek_off, > but is acquired only if peeking with offset is enabled. > > As a consequence of the above schema, enqueue to sk_error_queue > will cause larger forward allocation on following normal data > (due to sk_rmem_alloc grow), but this allows amortizing the cost > of the atomic operation on SK_MEM_QUANTUM/skb->truesize packets. > The use of separate atomics for 'mem_alloced' and 'mem_freed' > allows the use of a single atomic operation to protect against > concurrent dequeue. > > Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> > --- > include/linux/udp.h | 2 + > include/net/udp.h | 5 ++ > net/ipv4/udp.c | 151 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 158 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/linux/udp.h b/include/linux/udp.h > index d1fd8cd..cd72645 100644 > --- a/include/linux/udp.h > +++ b/include/linux/udp.h > @@ -42,6 +42,8 @@ static inline u32 udp_hashfn(const struct net *net, u32 num, u32 mask) > struct udp_sock { > /* inet_sock has to be the first member */ > struct inet_sock inet; > + atomic_t mem_allocated; > + atomic_t mem_freed; Hi Paolo, thanks for working on this. All this code looks quite invasive to me ? Also does inet_diag properly give the forward_alloc to user ? $ ss -mua State Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Addres s:Port UNCONN 51584 0 *:52460 *:* skmem:(r51584,rb327680,t0,tb327680,f1664,w0,o0,bl0,d575) Couldn't we instead use an union of an atomic_t and int for sk->sk_forward_alloc ? All udp queues/dequeues would manipulate the atomic_t using regular atomic ops and use a special skb destructor (instead of sock_rfree()) Also I would not bother 'reclaiming' forward_alloc at dequeue, unless udp is under memory pressure. Please share your performance numbers, thanks ! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Eric, On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 16:31 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Also does inet_diag properly give the forward_alloc to user ? > > $ ss -mua > State Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Addres > s:Port > UNCONN 51584 0 *:52460 *:* > skmem:(r51584,rb327680,t0,tb327680,f1664,w0,o0,bl0,d575) Thank you very much for reviewing this! My bad, there is still a race which leads to temporary negative values of fwd. I feel the fix is trivial but it needs some investigation. > Couldn't we instead use an union of an atomic_t and int for > sk->sk_forward_alloc ? That was our first attempt, but we had some issue on mem scheduling; if we use: if (atomic_sub_return(size, &sk->sk_forward_alloc_atomic) < 0) { // fwd alloc } that leads to inescapable, temporary, negative value for sk->sk_forward_alloc. Another option would be: again: fwd = atomic_read(&sk->sk_forward_alloc_atomic); if (fwd > size) { if (atomic_cmpxchg(&sk->sk_forward_alloc_atomic, fwd, fwd - size) != fwd) goto again; } else // fwd alloc which would be bad under high contention. I think that using a single atomic to track both scheduling and reclaim requires a similar loop to resolve reclaim contention. They should be very rare, especially if we can avoid reclaiming on dequeue, but still will complicate the code. Finally, pahole shows that the number of cacheline used by an udp socket on x86_64 does not change adding the two new atomic fields. > All udp queues/dequeues would manipulate the atomic_t using regular > atomic ops and use a special skb destructor (instead of sock_rfree()) I tried the special skb destructor and discarded it, but thinking again, now I feel it can simplify the code, regardless of the used schema. We will still need to replace the current in-kernel skb_free_datagram_locked() for udp with something else, so a bit of noise in the sunrpc subsystem will remain. > Also I would not bother 'reclaiming' forward_alloc at dequeue, unless > udp is under memory pressure. We discarded that option because it would change significantly the system behavior, but if there is agreement on it, I think that it would make a really relevant (positive) difference! > Please share your performance numbers, thanks ! Tested using pktgen with random src port, 64 bytes packet, wire-speed on an 10G link as sender and udp_sink by Jesper (https://github.com/netoptimizer/network-testing/blob/master/src/udp_sink.c) as receiver, using l4 tuple rxhash to stress the contention, and one or more udp_sink instance with reuseport. nr readers Kpps (vanilla) Kpps (patched) 1 241 600 3 1800 2200 6 3450 3950 9 5100 5400 12 6400 6650 Thank you for the very nice suggestions! Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 22/09/16 11:33, Paolo Abeni wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 16:31 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> Also does inet_diag properly give the forward_alloc to user ? >> >> $ ss -mua >> State Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Addres >> s:Port >> UNCONN 51584 0 *:52460 *:* >> skmem:(r51584,rb327680,t0,tb327680,f1664,w0,o0,bl0,d575) > Thank you very much for reviewing this! > > My bad, there is still a race which leads to temporary negative values > of fwd. I feel the fix is trivial but it needs some investigation. > >> Couldn't we instead use an union of an atomic_t and int for >> sk->sk_forward_alloc ? > That was our first attempt, but we had some issue on mem scheduling; if > we use: > > if (atomic_sub_return(size, &sk->sk_forward_alloc_atomic) < 0) { > // fwd alloc > } > > that leads to inescapable, temporary, negative value for > sk->sk_forward_alloc. > > Another option would be: > > again: > fwd = atomic_read(&sk->sk_forward_alloc_atomic); > if (fwd > size) { > if (atomic_cmpxchg(&sk->sk_forward_alloc_atomic, fwd, fwd - size) != fwd) > goto again; > } else > // fwd alloc > > which would be bad under high contention. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding the problem, but couldn't you have two atomic_t fields, 'internal' and 'external' forward_alloc. Then if (atomic_sub_return(size, &sk->sk_forward_alloc_internal) < 0) { atomic_sub(size, &sk->sk_forward_alloc); // fwd alloc } else { atomic_add(size, &sk->sk_forward_alloc_internal); } or something like that. Then sk->sk_forward_alloc never sees a negative value, and is always >= sk->sk_forward_alloc_internal. Of course places that go the other way would have to add to sk->sk_forward_alloc first, before adding to sk->sk_forward_alloc_internal, to maintain that invariant. Would that help matters at all? -Ed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 16:21 +0100, Edward Cree wrote: > On 22/09/16 11:33, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > > On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 16:31 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> Also does inet_diag properly give the forward_alloc to user ? > >> > >> $ ss -mua > >> State Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Addres > >> s:Port > >> UNCONN 51584 0 *:52460 *:* > >> skmem:(r51584,rb327680,t0,tb327680,f1664,w0,o0,bl0,d575) > > Thank you very much for reviewing this! > > > > My bad, there is still a race which leads to temporary negative values > > of fwd. I feel the fix is trivial but it needs some investigation. > > > >> Couldn't we instead use an union of an atomic_t and int for > >> sk->sk_forward_alloc ? > > That was our first attempt, but we had some issue on mem scheduling; if > > we use: > > > > if (atomic_sub_return(size, &sk->sk_forward_alloc_atomic) < 0) { > > // fwd alloc > > } > > > > that leads to inescapable, temporary, negative value for > > sk->sk_forward_alloc. > > > > Another option would be: > > > > again: > > fwd = atomic_read(&sk->sk_forward_alloc_atomic); > > if (fwd > size) { > > if (atomic_cmpxchg(&sk->sk_forward_alloc_atomic, fwd, fwd - size) != fwd) > > goto again; > > } else > > // fwd alloc > > > > which would be bad under high contention. > Apologies if I'm misunderstanding the problem, but couldn't you have two > atomic_t fields, 'internal' and 'external' forward_alloc. Then > if (atomic_sub_return(size, &sk->sk_forward_alloc_internal) < 0) { > atomic_sub(size, &sk->sk_forward_alloc); > // fwd alloc > } else { > atomic_add(size, &sk->sk_forward_alloc_internal); > } > or something like that. Then sk->sk_forward_alloc never sees a negative > value, and is always >= sk->sk_forward_alloc_internal. Of course places > that go the other way would have to add to sk->sk_forward_alloc first, > before adding to sk->sk_forward_alloc_internal, to maintain that invariant. I think that the idea behind using atomic ops directly on sk_forward_alloc is to avoid adding other fields to the udp_socket. If we can add some fields to the udp_sock structure, the schema proposed in this patch should fit better (modulo bugs ;-), always requiring a single atomic operation at memory reclaiming time and at memory allocation time. Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:14 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > I think that the idea behind using atomic ops directly on > sk_forward_alloc is to avoid adding other fields to the udp_socket. > > If we can add some fields to the udp_sock structure, the schema proposed > in this patch should fit better (modulo bugs ;-), always requiring a > single atomic operation at memory reclaiming time and at memory > allocation time. But do we want any additional atomic to begin with ? Given typical number of UDP sockets on a host, we could reserve/forward alloc at socket creation time, and when SO_RCVBUF is changed. I totally understand that this schem does not work with TCP, because TCP BDP mandates xx MB of buffers per socket, and we really handle millions of TCP sockets per host, But for UDP, most applications are working well with a default limit, and we hardly have more than 1000 UDP sockets. cat /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_default 212992 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 09:30 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:14 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > > I think that the idea behind using atomic ops directly on > > sk_forward_alloc is to avoid adding other fields to the udp_socket. > > > > If we can add some fields to the udp_sock structure, the schema proposed > > in this patch should fit better (modulo bugs ;-), always requiring a > > single atomic operation at memory reclaiming time and at memory > > allocation time. > > But do we want any additional atomic to begin with ? > > Given typical number of UDP sockets on a host, we could reserve/forward > alloc at socket creation time, and when SO_RCVBUF is changed. That would be very efficient and would probably work on most scenario, but if/when the system will reach udp memory pressure things will be very bad: forward allocation on open() will fail and nobody will be able to create any new udp socket, right ? We are working on a v2 incorporating the feedback of your previous email - still keeping the new udp_sock fields. It looks quite simpler than v1, will work reasonably well in memory pressure scenario, and performance are measurably better than v1, most probably comparable with the above solution, since usually no additional atomic operations (beyond sk_rmem_alloc updating) are performed on enqueue/dequeue. Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 22:27 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 09:30 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:14 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > > > > I think that the idea behind using atomic ops directly on > > > sk_forward_alloc is to avoid adding other fields to the udp_socket. > > > > > > If we can add some fields to the udp_sock structure, the schema proposed > > > in this patch should fit better (modulo bugs ;-), always requiring a > > > single atomic operation at memory reclaiming time and at memory > > > allocation time. > > > > But do we want any additional atomic to begin with ? > > > > Given typical number of UDP sockets on a host, we could reserve/forward > > alloc at socket creation time, and when SO_RCVBUF is changed. > > That would be very efficient and would probably work on most scenario, > but if/when the system will reach udp memory pressure things will be > very bad: forward allocation on open() will fail and nobody will be able > to create any new udp socket, right ? > No, we could allow one page per socket (udp_mem[0]) and applications would still work. TCP has the notion of memory pressure, and behaves roughly the same in this case (one skb is allowed to be received) The other (fat) sockets could notice udp_memory_pressure is set and start reclaiming their forward allocations for other sockets. We have a counter of UDP sockets, so probably doable to compute udp_mem[2]/number Anyway, just an idea. > We are working on a v2 incorporating the feedback of your previous email > - still keeping the new udp_sock fields. > It looks quite simpler than v1, will work reasonably well in memory > pressure scenario, and performance are measurably better than v1, most > probably comparable with the above solution, since usually no additional > atomic operations (beyond sk_rmem_alloc updating) are performed on > enqueue/dequeue. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 13:34 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 22:27 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 09:30 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:14 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > > > > > > I think that the idea behind using atomic ops directly on > > > > sk_forward_alloc is to avoid adding other fields to the udp_socket. > > > > > > > > If we can add some fields to the udp_sock structure, the schema proposed > > > > in this patch should fit better (modulo bugs ;-), always requiring a > > > > single atomic operation at memory reclaiming time and at memory > > > > allocation time. > > > > > > But do we want any additional atomic to begin with ? > > > > > > Given typical number of UDP sockets on a host, we could reserve/forward > > > alloc at socket creation time, and when SO_RCVBUF is changed. > > > > That would be very efficient and would probably work on most scenario, > > but if/when the system will reach udp memory pressure things will be > > very bad: forward allocation on open() will fail and nobody will be able > > to create any new udp socket, right ? > > > > No, we could allow one page per socket (udp_mem[0]) and applications > would still work. I meant udp_rmem_min, not udp_mem[0] udp_rmem_min - INTEGER Minimal size of receive buffer used by UDP sockets in moderation. Each UDP socket is able to use the size for receiving data, even if total pages of UDP sockets exceed udp_mem pressure. The unit is byte. Default: 1 page -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 13:34 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 22:27 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 09:30 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:14 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > > > > > > I think that the idea behind using atomic ops directly on > > > > sk_forward_alloc is to avoid adding other fields to the udp_socket. > > > > > > > > If we can add some fields to the udp_sock structure, the schema proposed > > > > in this patch should fit better (modulo bugs ;-), always requiring a > > > > single atomic operation at memory reclaiming time and at memory > > > > allocation time. > > > > > > But do we want any additional atomic to begin with ? > > > > > > Given typical number of UDP sockets on a host, we could reserve/forward > > > alloc at socket creation time, and when SO_RCVBUF is changed. > > > > That would be very efficient and would probably work on most scenario, > > but if/when the system will reach udp memory pressure things will be > > very bad: forward allocation on open() will fail and nobody will be able > > to create any new udp socket, right ? > > > > No, we could allow one page per socket (udp_mem[0]) and applications > would still work. > > TCP has the notion of memory pressure, and behaves roughly the same in > this case (one skb is allowed to be received) > > The other (fat) sockets could notice udp_memory_pressure is set and > start reclaiming their forward allocations for other sockets. I agree, that would work. Anyway I think it will more invasive than the proposed code, after the currently ongoing rework. With the above, on memory pressure, reclaim will be needed on dequeue, and scheduling will still needed even on enqueue. The overall behavior of the two approach will be similar: lazy reclaiming under memory pressure or on sk closing, and rare memory scheduling. > Anyway, just an idea. Any comments are always very appreciated! Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/include/linux/udp.h b/include/linux/udp.h index d1fd8cd..cd72645 100644 --- a/include/linux/udp.h +++ b/include/linux/udp.h @@ -42,6 +42,8 @@ static inline u32 udp_hashfn(const struct net *net, u32 num, u32 mask) struct udp_sock { /* inet_sock has to be the first member */ struct inet_sock inet; + atomic_t mem_allocated; + atomic_t mem_freed; #define udp_port_hash inet.sk.__sk_common.skc_u16hashes[0] #define udp_portaddr_hash inet.sk.__sk_common.skc_u16hashes[1] #define udp_portaddr_node inet.sk.__sk_common.skc_portaddr_node diff --git a/include/net/udp.h b/include/net/udp.h index ea53a87..86307a4 100644 --- a/include/net/udp.h +++ b/include/net/udp.h @@ -246,6 +246,10 @@ static inline __be16 udp_flow_src_port(struct net *net, struct sk_buff *skb, } /* net/ipv4/udp.c */ +void skb_free_udp(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb); +void skb_consume_udp(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int len); +int udp_rmem_schedule(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb); + void udp_v4_early_demux(struct sk_buff *skb); int udp_get_port(struct sock *sk, unsigned short snum, int (*saddr_cmp)(const struct sock *, @@ -258,6 +262,7 @@ void udp_flush_pending_frames(struct sock *sk); void udp4_hwcsum(struct sk_buff *skb, __be32 src, __be32 dst); int udp_rcv(struct sk_buff *skb); int udp_ioctl(struct sock *sk, int cmd, unsigned long arg); +int udp_init_sock(struct sock *sk); int udp_disconnect(struct sock *sk, int flags); unsigned int udp_poll(struct file *file, struct socket *sock, poll_table *wait); struct sk_buff *skb_udp_tunnel_segment(struct sk_buff *skb, diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c index 058c312..98480af 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/udp.c +++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c @@ -1178,6 +1178,157 @@ out: return ret; } +static inline int __udp_forward(struct udp_sock *up, int freed, int rmem) +{ + return atomic_read(&up->mem_allocated) - freed - rmem; +} + +static int skb_unref(struct sk_buff *skb) +{ + if (likely(atomic_read(&skb->users) == 1)) + smp_rmb(); + else if (likely(!atomic_dec_and_test(&skb->users))) + return 0; + + return skb->truesize; +} + +static inline int udp_try_release(struct sock *sk, int *fwd, int partial) +{ + struct udp_sock *up = udp_sk(sk); + int freed_old, freed_new, amt; + + freed_old = atomic_read(&up->mem_freed); + *fwd = __udp_forward(up, freed_old, atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc)); + if (*fwd < SK_MEM_QUANTUM + partial) + return 0; + + /* we can have concurrent release; if we catch any conflict + * via atomic_cmpxchg, let only one of them relase the memory + */ + amt = sk_mem_pages(*fwd - partial) << SK_MEM_QUANTUM_SHIFT; + freed_new = atomic_cmpxchg(&up->mem_freed, freed_old, freed_old + amt); + return (freed_new == freed_old) ? amt : 0; +} + +/* reclaim the allocated forward memory, except 'partial' quanta */ +static void skb_release_mem_udp(struct sock *sk, int partial) +{ + int fwd, delta = udp_try_release(sk, &fwd, partial); + + if (delta) + __sk_mem_reduce_allocated(sk, delta >> SK_MEM_QUANTUM_SHIFT); + sk->sk_forward_alloc = fwd - delta; +} + +void skb_free_udp(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) +{ + int size = skb_unref(skb); + + if (!size) + return; + + trace_kfree_skb(skb, __builtin_return_address(0)); + __kfree_skb(skb); + skb_release_mem_udp(sk, 1); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(skb_free_udp); + +void skb_consume_udp(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int len) +{ + int size = skb_unref(skb); + + if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(sk->sk_peek_off) >= 0)) { + bool slow = lock_sock_fast(sk); + + sk_peek_offset_bwd(sk, len); + unlock_sock_fast(sk, slow); + } + if (!size) + return; + + __kfree_skb(skb); + skb_release_mem_udp(sk, 1); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(skb_consume_udp); + +static void udp_queue_purge(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff_head *list, + int partial) +{ + struct sk_buff *skb; + int size; + + while ((skb = __skb_dequeue(list)) != NULL) { + size = skb_unref(skb); + if (size) { + trace_kfree_skb(skb, udp_queue_purge); + __kfree_skb(skb); + } + } + skb_release_mem_udp(sk, partial); +} + +int udp_rmem_schedule(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) +{ + int alloc, freed, fwd, amt, delta, rmem, err = -ENOMEM; + struct udp_sock *up = udp_sk(sk); + + rmem = atomic_add_return(skb->truesize, &sk->sk_rmem_alloc); + if (rmem > sk->sk_rcvbuf) + goto drop; + + freed = atomic_read(&up->mem_freed); + fwd = __udp_forward(up, freed, rmem); + if (fwd > 0) + goto no_alloc; + + amt = sk_mem_pages(skb->truesize); + delta = amt << SK_MEM_QUANTUM_SHIFT; + if (!__sk_mem_raise_allocated(sk, delta, amt, SK_MEM_RECV)) { + err = -ENOBUFS; + goto drop; + } + + /* if we have some skbs in the error queue, the forward allocation could + * be understimated, even below 0; avoid exporting such values + */ + alloc = atomic_add_return(delta, &up->mem_allocated); + fwd = alloc - freed - rmem; + if (fwd < 0) + fwd = SK_MEM_QUANTUM; + +no_alloc: + sk->sk_forward_alloc = fwd; + skb_orphan(skb); + skb->sk = sk; + skb->destructor = sock_rmem_free; + return 0; + +drop: + atomic_sub(skb->truesize, &sk->sk_rmem_alloc); + atomic_inc(&sk->sk_drops); + return err; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(udp_rmem_schedule); + +static void udp_destruct_sock(struct sock *sk) +{ + /* reclaim completely the forward allocated memory */ + udp_queue_purge(sk, &sk->sk_receive_queue, 0); + inet_sock_destruct(sk); +} + +int udp_init_sock(struct sock *sk) +{ + struct udp_sock *up = udp_sk(sk); + + atomic_set(&up->mem_allocated, 0); + atomic_set(&up->mem_freed, 0); + sk->sk_destruct = udp_destruct_sock; + return 0; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(udp_init_sock); + /** * first_packet_length - return length of first packet in receive queue * @sk: socket