[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:54:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: pabeni@...hat.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: avoid unneeded atomic operation in
ip*_append_data()
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 14:30:01 +0200
> After commit 694aba690de0 ("ipv4: factorize sk_wmem_alloc updates
> done by __ip_append_data()") and commit 1f4c6eb24029 ("ipv6:
> factorize sk_wmem_alloc updates done by __ip6_append_data()"),
> when transmitting sub MTU datagram, an addtional, unneeded atomic
> operation is performed in ip*_append_data() to update wmem_alloc:
> in the above condition the delta is 0.
>
> The above cause small but measurable performance regression in UDP
> xmit tput test with packet size below MTU.
>
> This change avoids such overhead updating wmem_alloc only if
> wmem_alloc_delta is non zero.
>
> The error path is left intentionally unmodified: it's a slow path
> and simplicity is preferred to performances.
>
> Fixes: 694aba690de0 ("ipv4: factorize sk_wmem_alloc updates done by __ip_append_data()")
> Fixes: 1f4c6eb24029 ("ipv6: factorize sk_wmem_alloc updates done by __ip6_append_data()")
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
...
> - refcount_add(wmem_alloc_delta, &sk->sk_wmem_alloc);
> + if (wmem_alloc_delta)
> + refcount_add(wmem_alloc_delta, &sk->sk_wmem_alloc);
...
> - refcount_add(wmem_alloc_delta, &sk->sk_wmem_alloc);
> + if (wmem_alloc_delta)
> + refcount_add(wmem_alloc_delta, &sk->sk_wmem_alloc);
This is simple enough, so applied.
But I wonder if atomic_{add,sub} and refcount_{add,sub}() should just check
for zero inline, just like the {set,clear}_bit() implementations avoid the
atomic operation if the bit already has the desired value.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists