[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903021340540.31742@wrl-59.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:54:17 +0200 (EET)
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 14/17] tcp: remove pointless .dsack code
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:44:39 +0200
>
> > From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
> >
> > In the pure assignment case, the earlier zeroing is
> > still in effect.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
>
> I skipped this one.
>
> These tests could be there to avoid dirtying a cacheline
> when unnecessary. And so unless we can prove the condition
> always hits and we always do the write, we should keep
> the tests there.
We'll be dirty it anyway (not that I check), the first "real" statement
in tcp_rcv_established is:
tp->rx_opt.saw_tstamp = 0;
...that'll land on the same dword. :-/
I suppose the blocks are there just because they had more complexity
inside when they had to calculate the eff_sacks too (maybe it would
have been better to just remove them in that drop-patch so you would
have had less head-ache :-)).
Besides, it isn't very nice to have tx/rx or rx'es on different cpus
anyway, no?
--
i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists