[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191210151047.GB1423505@t480s.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:10:47 -0500
From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: bridge: add STP xstats
Hi Nikolay,
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 21:50:10 +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> >> Why do you need percpu ? All of these seem to be incremented with the
> >> bridge lock held. A few more comments below.
> >
> > All other xstats are incremented percpu, I simply followed the pattern.
> >
>
> We have already a lock, we can use it and avoid the whole per-cpu memory handling.
> It seems to be acquired in all cases where these counters need to be changed.
Since the other xstats counters are currently implemented this way, I prefer
to keep the code as is, until we eventually change them all if percpu is in
fact not needed anymore.
The new series is ready and I can submit it now if there's no objection.
Thanks,
Vivien
Powered by blists - more mailing lists