[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d4f4b6ba-fb3b-d873-23b2-4b5ba9cf4db8@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:54:04 +0000
From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>,
Yadu Kishore <kyk.segfault@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] skbuff: introduce skbuff_heads bulking and
reusing
Without wishing to weigh in on whether this caching is a good idea...
Wouldn't it be simpler, rather than having two separate "alloc" and "flush"
caches, to have a single larger cache, such that whenever it becomes full
we bulk flush the top half, and when it's empty we bulk alloc the bottom
half? That should mean fewer branches, fewer instructions etc. than
having to decide which cache to act upon every time.
-ed
Powered by blists - more mailing lists