[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1346163154.3571.6.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:12:34 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Wei Yongjun <weiyj.lk@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, yongjun_wei@...ndmicro.com.cn,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] skbuff: remove pointless conditional before kfree_skb()
On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 21:10 +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote:
> From: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@...ndmicro.com.cn>
>
> Remove pointless conditional before kfree_skb().
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@...ndmicro.com.cn>
> ---
> include/linux/skbuff.h | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> index 7632c87..0b846d9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
> +++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> @@ -2464,8 +2464,7 @@ static inline void nf_conntrack_get_reasm(struct sk_buff *skb)
> }
> static inline void nf_conntrack_put_reasm(struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> - if (skb)
> - kfree_skb(skb);
> + kfree_skb(skb);
> }
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_BRIDGE_NETFILTER
>
Its not exactly pointless.
Its a tradeoff between kernel code size, and ability for cpu to predict
a branch in kfree_skb()
This test is in hot path, and therefore this patch can potentially have
a performance impact.
I really think most kfree_skb() calls are done with a non NULL param,
so the branch prediction is good.
But after this patch, things are totally different.
Therefore, I am against it.
--
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