Hello, On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote: > I am still digesting this awesome patch series ;) Thanks. I don't feel quite comfortable with some of the changes (mostly XFRM, dst_confirm usage in CXGB) and I hope the discussion can provide adequate solution. > Not sure why you used an unlikely() here. TCP for example would hit this > path quite often. I was not sure, may be because ACKs can come with lower rate than the sent packets. Also because non-TCP rarely uses MSG_CONFIRM. If you still think it is better without unlikely, I'll remove it. > So considering sk_dst_pending_confirm might be dirtied quite often, > > I am not sure why you placed it in the cache line that contains > sk_rx_dst (in 1st patch) I saw your recent changes and was worried if the sk_dst_confirm() calling on RX can cause unwanted dirtying of additional cache line. My preliminary analyze pointed sk_omem_alloc as good candidate for moving to next cache line. I know how critical is to properly place the new flags, so I really need recommendations about this. Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
