[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131106185936.GA11415@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:59:36 -0500
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sebastien.dugue@...l.net, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: add prefetching to do_csum
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:23:10AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:54 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> > My guess was that the whole comment was made in reference to the fact that
> > checksum offload negated all these advantages. Thats not so true anymore, since
> > infiniband needs csum in software for ipoib.
> >
> > I'll fix this up and send a v3, but I'll give it a day in case there are more
> > comments first.
>
> Also please include netdev, I think people there are interested.
>
Sure, will do in the updated version
> I caught this message, but I usually cannot read lkml traffic.
>
> I wonder why you do not use (and/or change/tune) prefetch_range()
> instead of a local definition.
>
I wanted to look into this further, because I wasn't (yet) sure if it was a bug
or not, but from what I can see x86_64 doesn't define ARCH_HAS_PREFECTH. That
makes prefetch_range() a nop (I confirmed this via objdump). It seems like we
should either define ARCH_HAS_PREFETCH on x86_64, or we should remove the
#ifdef from prefetch_range
>
>
>
--
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