On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:49 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Actually, no thanks. Have you actually taken a look at > ipv6_skip_exthdr()? > > Do that, then tell me that you want the extra function call, plus all > of the processing and data touching that that function does, just to > handle the case that there "might" be ipv6 extension headers there. > I don't think ipv6_skip_exthdr() is too weight. If there isn't any extra header, only some compare and jump instruments are added, and no more data references. If there are some headers, I think distributing packets among CPUs is more important than the extra cost introduced by calling ipv6_skip_exthdr(). > It is the exception rather than the rule, and I think it's just > assume we have a real protocol header next. > > And that's what skb_tx_hash() used to do too before we started using > the recorded RX queue and socket hash values. > > Nobody cared and nobody complained. Guess why? Because in practice > it doesn't matter. > Maybe they don't know it.If it was a performance regression, I think more people might pay attention on it. -- Regards， Changli Gao(xiaosuo@xxxxxxxxx) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
