netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V2 3/3] net: Add GRO support for vxlan traffic

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:45:34 +0200
From:	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Jerry Chu <hkchu@...gle.com>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Yan Burman <yanb@...lanox.com>,
	Shlomo Pongratz <shlomop@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 3/3] net: Add GRO support for vxlan traffic

On 07/01/2014 23:09, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 21:43 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>>> Why ^ instead of != ?
>>>> The XOR approach is very popular in the GRO stack, e.g see the IPv4 chain
>>>> of inet_gro_receive() && tcp_gro_receive(), I guess this might relates
>>>> to more efficient assembly code for ^ vs. != and/or the fast/elegant
>>>> transitive nature of that operator
>>> This trick is only needed/used when many compares are folded into a
>>> single conditional :
>>>
>>> if (a->f1 != b->f1 || a->f2 != b->f2)
>>>
>>> ->
>>>
>>> if (((a->f1 ^ b->f1) | (a->f2 ^ b->f2)) != 0)
>>>
>>> Please do not use XOR for a single compare.
>> OK, but just out of curiosity -- what's the reasoning? clarity or
>> efficiency or both?
> Both. Compiling a simple program and comparing alternatives: gcc
> produced the identical code for the single conditional (^ vs !=)
> using the cmp instruction. Testing the two conditional case like Eric
> provided; the second method (using ^) resulted in 4 more instructions,
> but only one branch as opposed to two in the first method (!=). Method
> #1 has the advantage of short circuiting when the first condition is
> true, so organizing the conditionals to maximize the probability of
> short circuit could be beneficial.

OK, I will follow that.

Or.

--
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