[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EDBBB86.8050406@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 19:27:18 +0100
From: Nicolas de Pesloüan
<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: tcp_sendmsg() page recycling
Le 04/12/2011 18:20, Joe Perches a écrit :
> On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 18:05 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> If our TCP_PAGE(sk) is not shared (page_count() == 1), we can set page
>> offset to 0.
> []
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> []
>> @@ -1009,7 +1009,12 @@ new_segment:
>> int merge = 0;
>> int i = skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags;
>> struct page *page = TCP_PAGE(sk);
>> - int off = TCP_OFF(sk);
>> + int off;
>> +
>> + if (page&& page_count(page) == 1)
>> + TCP_OFF(sk) = 0;
>> +
>> + off = TCP_OFF(sk);
>
> This might be clearer and take one less indirection as
>
> if (page&& page_count(page) == 1) {
> TCP_OFF(sk) = 0;
> off = 0;
> } else {
> off = 0;
> }
>
> or maybe
>
> if (page&& page_count(page) == 1)
> off = TCP_OFF(sk) = 0;
> else
> off = 0;
Well, those two fragments don't look equivalent to the original one, unless TCP_OFF(sk) happens to
be 0 before the test. But if this is true, then the whole thing seems useless. Do I miss something?
For as far as I understand, the following should be equivalent to Eric's original, but I don't
consider it better than the original.
if (page&& page_count(page) == 1)
off = TCP_OFF(sk) = 0;
else
off = TCP_OFF(sk);
Nicolas.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists