[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1354102061.14302.84.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 03:27:41 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: move inet_dport/inet_num in sock_common
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 20:12 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> The point of having the cond jump on sk_hash/hash was that in one
> compare, we catch the yes/no status with 99.999999 % success rate.
>
> All the following compares are predicted by the cpu and essentially are
> free. Adding the AND or OR will basically have the same cpu cost.
>
> If we wanted to do a full test of all tuple fields and a single
> conditional jump, we would not have to include hash test at all.
>
> (If the 4-tuple matches, then sk_hash/hash value _must_ be the same by
> definition)
What I am going to do is to remove the hash compare from the macros so
that we can use likely()/unlikely() to explicitly give hints to the
compiler.
The hash compare can be omitted in the validation done after the
atomic_inc_not_zero() [ done to make sure keys didnt change ]
begin:
sk_nulls_for_each_rcu(sk, node, &head->chain) {
if (sk->sk_hash != hash)
continue;
if (likely(INET_MATCH(sk, net, acookie,
saddr, daddr, ports, dif))) {
if (unlikely(!atomic_inc_not_zero(&sk->sk_refcnt)))
goto begintw;
if (unlikely(!INET_MATCH(sk, net, acookie,
saddr, daddr, ports, dif))) {
sock_put(sk);
goto begin;
}
goto out;
}
}
--
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