linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] Reduce cache miss for snmp_fold

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <beb30504-7c22-482d-330a-469ad3232e8e@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2016 10:30:59 +0800
From:   hejianet <hejianet@...il.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
        Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] Reduce cache miss for snmp_fold_field

Hi Marcelo

Thanks for the suggestion

Will consider that

B.R.

Jia


On 9/6/16 8:44 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 10:30:03AM +0800, Jia He wrote:
> ...
>> v2:
>> - 1/6 fix bug in udplite statistics.
>> - 1/6 snmp_seq_show is split into 2 parts
>>
>> Jia He (6):
>>    proc: Reduce cache miss in {snmp,netstat}_seq_show
>>    proc: Reduce cache miss in snmp6_seq_show
>>    proc: Reduce cache miss in sctp_snmp_seq_show
>>    proc: Reduce cache miss in xfrm_statistics_seq_show
>>    ipv6: Remove useless parameter in __snmp6_fill_statsdev
>>    net: Suppress the "Comparison to NULL could be written" warning
> Hi Jia,
>
> Did you try to come up with a generic interface for this, like
> snmp_fold_fields64() (note the fieldS) or snmp_fold_field64_batch() ?
>
> Sounds like we have the same code in several places and seems they all
> operate very similarly. They have a percpu table, an identified max, a
> destination buffer..
>
> If this is possible, this would reduce the possibility of hiccups in a
> particular code.
>
>    Marcelo
>
>