[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <551B0274.1010900@hartkopp.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 22:24:20 +0200
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] can: fix multiple delivery of a single CAN
frame for overlapping CAN filters
On 31.03.2015 14:32, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 03/30/2015 12:41 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>> Please check out
>>
>> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/
>>
>> And especially
>> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/x173.html#LOCK-SOFTIRQS-SAME
>>
>> When a softirq processes an incoming skb this remains on that selected CPU.
>
> Okay, I was not sure about this. What about preempt_rt?
>
I don't care :-)
There are so many implementations that rely on this per-CPU stuff that we can
assume preempt_rt takes care of it (e.g. with locking or reducing CPU cores, etc)
>> Putting a struct into these percpu handling can be done - but does it increase
>> the readability in this case?
>
> It saves ressources, 1 pointer instead of 3 (considering both of your
> patches) and only 1 allocation.
Yes. I did some more code reading, created a struct for it and omitted the
initialization as alloc_percpu returns an already zero'ed memory region.
Will send tomorrow morning.
Regards,
Oliver
--
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