Re: [RFC] Could we avoid touching dst->refcount in some cases ?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Monday, November 24, 2008 - 3:14 am

Andi Kleen a écrit :

Well, you probably mention Stephen patch to avoid dirtying other contended
cache lines (one napi structure per cpu)

Having multiple loopback dev would really be a hack I agree.


Well, in case of UDP, we call ip_push_pending_frames() and this one
does the increment of refcount (again). I was not considering
avoiding the refcount hold we do when queing a skb in transmit
queue, only during a short period of time. Oh well, ip_append_data()
might sleep, so this cannot work...

I agree avoiding one refcount increment/decrement is probably
not a huge gain, considering we *have* to do the increment,
but when many cpus are using UDP send/receive in //, this might
show a gain somehow.

So maybe we could make ip_append_data() (or its callers) a
litle bit smarter, avoiding increment/decrement if possible.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [RFC] Could we avoid touching dst->refcount in some ca ..., Eric Dumazet, (Mon Nov 24, 3:14 am)
Re: net-next: broken IP_PKTINFO, David Miller, (Wed Dec 17, 8:34 pm)
Re: net-next: broken IP_PKTINFO, Eric Dumazet, (Wed Dec 17, 10:59 pm)
Re: net-next: broken IP_PKTINFO, David Miller, (Wed Dec 17, 11:17 pm)