[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180405160749.GB12703@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:07:49 -0700
From: Vadim Lomovtsev <Vadim.Lomovtsev@...iumnetworks.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: sgoutham@...ium.com, sunil.kovvuri@...il.com, rric@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
dnelson@...hat.com, gustavo@...eddedor.com,
Vadim Lomovtsev <Vadim.Lomovtsev@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: thunderx: rework mac addresses list to u64 array
Hi Christoph,
Thank you for your feedback and time.
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 08:07:48AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > struct xcast_addr_list {
> > - struct list_head list;
> > int count;
> > + u64 mc[0];
>
> Please use the standard C99 syntax here:
>
> u64 mc[];
Ok, will update.
>
> > + mc_list = kmalloc(sizeof(*mc_list) +
> > + sizeof(u64) * netdev_mc_count(netdev),
> > + GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> kmalloc_array(), please.
In this case it would require two memory allocation calls to kmalloc() for
xcast_addr_list struct and to kmalloc_array() for 'mc' addresses, becasue of
different data types and so two null-ptr checks .. this is what I'd like get rid off.
My idea of this was to keep number of array elements and themselves within the
same memory block/page to reduce number of memory allocation requests, number
of allocated pages/blocks and avoid possible memory fragmentation (however, I believe
the latter is already handled at the mm layer).
WBR,
Vadim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists