[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJrKpLYAjVQ-DkNDQZewRg4_JtP7KFA6VsOzY7W_Wj7L3FAdHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 07:30:09 -0500
From: Manish Kurup <kurup.manish@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Pieter Jansen van Vuuren
<pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com>,
oss-drivers@...ronome.com, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Aring <aring@...atatu.com>,
Roman Mashak <mrv@...atatu.com>,
Manish Kurup <manish.kurup@...izon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 0/3] nfp act_vlan: Rewrite of the TC vlan
action to use the RCU, and incorporated review comments
Hi Dave,
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:53 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Manish Kurup <kurup.manish@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 08:50:00 -0500
>
>> This commit consists of 3 patches:
>>
>> patch1 (1/3):
>> The VLAN action maintains one set of stats across all cores, and uses a
>> spinlock to synchronize updates to it from the same. Changed this to use a
>> per-CPU stats context instead.
>> This change will result in better performance.
>>
>> patch2 (2/3):
>> Modified netronome nfp flower action to use VLAN helper functions instead
>> of accessing/referencing TC act_vlan private structures directly.
>>
>> patch3 (3/3):
>> Using a spinlock in the VLAN action causes performance issues when the VLAN
>> action is used on multiple cores. Rewrote the VLAN action to use RCU read
>> locking for reads and updates instead.
>> All functions now use an RCU dereferenced pointer to access the VLAN action
>> context. Modified helper functions used by other modules, to use the RCU as
>> opposed to directly accessing the structure.
>>
>> As part of this review, there were some changes suggested by reviewers.
>> I have incorporated all the changes that were requested.
> ...
>
> Series applied, thank you.
Thanks for applying the patch, however -
The last version I sent out (with changes for comments), was v10, But
I noticed that you applied v7 (without the reverse xmas tree patch on
patch #3).
Was there something wrong with that patch? Pleas let me know.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists