[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1322793200.11530.33.camel@debian>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:33:20 +0800
From: "Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>, "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"avi@...hat.com" <avi@...hat.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kaber@...sh.net" <kaber@...sh.net>,
"a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"jeremy@...source.com" <jeremy@...source.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: use this_cpu_xxx replace percpu_xxx funcs
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 17:00 +0800, Alex,Shi wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 16:38 +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Le jeudi 20 octobre 2011 à 15:32 +0800, Alex,Shi a écrit :
> > > percpu_xxx funcs are duplicated with this_cpu_xxx funcs, so replace them
> > > for further code clean up.
> > >
> > > And in preempt safe scenario, __this_cpu_xxx funcs has a bit better
> > > performance since __this_cpu_xxx has no redundant preempt_disable()
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
> > > ---
> > > net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c | 12 ++++++------
> > > net/socket.c | 4 ++--
> > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> >
> > Thanks !
>
> Anyone like to pick up this patch? or more comments for this?
Kaber, David:
I appreciate for your any comments on this. Could you like do me a
favor?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists