[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpXOts4YFsfaZYKiL-8u=v=0_vQ+DjML8g_JD0jPfz9kpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 13:14:14 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong.6@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next v2 2/5] bpf: introduce timeout map
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:29 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:35 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> > Minimize duplication of the code, no one said copy/paste all the code.
> > But memory bloat is a real problem and should be justification enough
> > to at least consider other options.
>
> Sure, I have no problem with this. The question is how do we balance?
> Is rewriting 200 lines of code to save 8 bytes of each entry acceptable?
> What about rewriting 2000 lines of code? Do people prefer to review 200
> or 2000 (or whatever number) lines of code? Or people just want a
> minimal change for easier reviews?
No worry any more. I manage to find some way to reuse the existing
members, that is lru_node. So the end result is putting gc stuff into
the union with lru_node without increasing the size of htab_elem.
And of course, without duplicating/refactoring regular htab code.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists