[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1548209986-83527-2-git-send-email-maowenan@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:19:36 +0800
From: Mao Wenan <maowenan@...wei.com>
To: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
<eric.dumazet@...il.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<stable@...r.kernel.org>, <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH stable 4.4 01/11] net: speed up skb_rbtree_purge()
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
[ Upstream commit 7c90584c66cc4b033a3b684b0e0950f79e7b7166 ]
As measured in my prior patch ("sch_netem: faster rb tree removal"),
rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe() is nice looking but much slower
than using rb_next() directly, except when tree is small enough
to fit in CPU caches (then the cost is the same)
Also note that there is not even an increase of text size :
$ size net/core/skbuff.o.before net/core/skbuff.o
text data bss dec hex filename
40711 1298 0 42009 a419 net/core/skbuff.o.before
40711 1298 0 42009 a419 net/core/skbuff.o
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Mao Wenan <maowenan@...wei.com>
---
net/core/skbuff.c | 11 +++++++----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
index 9703924..8a57bba 100644
--- a/net/core/skbuff.c
+++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
@@ -2388,12 +2388,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(skb_queue_purge);
*/
void skb_rbtree_purge(struct rb_root *root)
{
- struct sk_buff *skb, *next;
+ struct rb_node *p = rb_first(root);
- rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(skb, next, root, rbnode)
- kfree_skb(skb);
+ while (p) {
+ struct sk_buff *skb = rb_entry(p, struct sk_buff, rbnode);
- *root = RB_ROOT;
+ p = rb_next(p);
+ rb_erase(&skb->rbnode, root);
+ kfree_skb(skb);
+ }
}
/**
--
1.8.3.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists