netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] Reduce cache miss for snmp_fold

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]

Message-ID: <c44daa11-dc57-84fa-35cc-40ee0fe293f3@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:45:32 +0800
From:   hejianet <hejianet@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
        jmorris@...ei.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net,
        vyasevich@...il.com, nhorman@...driver.com,
        steffen.klassert@...unet.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
        marcelo.leitner@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] Reduce cache miss for snmp_fold_field



On 9/28/16 5:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jia He <hejianet@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:22:21 +0800
>
>> v5:
>> - order local variables from longest to shortest line
> I still see many cases where this problem still exists.  Please
> do not resubmit this patch series until you fix all of them.
>
> Patch #2:
>
> -static int snmp_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
> +static int snmp_seq_show_ipstats(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
>   {
>   	int i;
> +	u64 buff64[IPSTATS_MIB_MAX];
>   	struct net *net = seq->private;
>
> The order should be "net" then "buff64" then "i".
Sorry for my bad eyesight and quick hand :(
B.R.
Jia
>
> +static int snmp_seq_show_tcp_udp(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +	struct net *net = seq->private;
> +	unsigned long buff[TCPUDP_MIB_MAX];
>
> The order should be "buff", "net", then "i".
>
> Patch #3:
>
> @@ -192,13 +197,19 @@ static void snmp6_seq_show_item(struct seq_file *seq, void __percpu *pcpumib,
>   				const struct snmp_mib *itemlist)
>   {
>   	int i;
> -	unsigned long val;
> -
>   ...
> +	unsigned long buff[SNMP_MIB_MAX];
>
> The order should be "buff" then "i".
>
> @@ -206,10 +217,13 @@ static void snmp6_seq_show_item64(struct seq_file *seq, void __percpu *mib,
>   				  const struct snmp_mib *itemlist, size_t syncpoff)
>   {
>   	int i;
> +	u64 buff64[SNMP_MIB_MAX];
>
> Likewise.
>
> I cannot be any more explicit in my request than this.
>