On 2016/12/20 4:37, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > 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,further >> >> 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> > > . > Sorry for so late reply. I have test your new patch, It works well in my scene. Everybody,Is there any further comment about this awesome patch series? -- 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
