[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120201072307.GA6358@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 18:23:07 +1100
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] cls_cgroup: remove redundant rcu_read_lock/unlock
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 03:20:00PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
>
> >> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> >> index 213c856..c0bab23 100644
> >> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> >> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> >> @@ -1160,9 +1160,7 @@ void sock_update_classid(struct sock *sk)
> >> {
> >> u32 classid;
> >>
> >> - rcu_read_lock(); /* doing current task, which cannot vanish. */
> >> classid = task_cls_classid(current);
> >> - rcu_read_unlock();
> >> if (classid && classid != sk->sk_classid)
> >> sk->sk_classid = classid;
> >
> > Yes, this seems fine.
> >
> > Then, I wonder why we do the "if (classid && classid != sk->sk_classid)"
> >
> > before the :
> >
> > sk->sk_classid = classid;
> >
> > This seems unnecessary checks.
> >
>
> I was wondering about this too. He who added this may provide us with an
> answer.
Well writing a cache-line unnecessarily is bad.
Cheers,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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