[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210810163533.bn7zq2dzcilfm6o5@skbuf>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:35:33 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
George McCollister <george.mccollister@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/4] net: dsa: remove the "dsa_to_port in a
loop" antipattern from the core
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 02:35:32PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 02:41:07AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > On 8/9/2021 8:33 PM, DENG Qingfang wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 10:03:18PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > Ever since Vivien's conversion of the ds->ports array into a dst->ports
> > > > list, and the introduction of dsa_to_port, iterations through the ports
> > > > of a switch became quadratic whenever dsa_to_port was needed.
> > >
> > > So, what is the benefit of a linked list here? Do we allow users to
> > > insert/delete a dsa_port at runtime? If not, how about using a
> > > dynamically allocated array instead?
> >
> > The goal was to flatten the space while doing cross switch operations, which
> > would have otherwise required iterating over dsa_switch instances within a
> > dsa_switch_tree, and then over dsa_port within each dsa_switch.
>
> To expand on that: technically dsa_port_touch() _does_ happen at
> runtime, since multiple switches in a cross-chip tree probe
> asynchronously. To use a dynamically allocated array would mean to
> preallocate the sum of all DSA switch ports' worth of memory, and to
> preallocate an index for each DSA switch within that single array.
> Overall a list is simpler.
If I were to guess where Qingfang was hinting at, is that the receive
path now needs to iterate over a list, whereas before it simply indexed
an array:
static inline struct net_device *dsa_master_find_slave(struct net_device *dev,
int device, int port)
{
struct dsa_port *cpu_dp = dev->dsa_ptr;
struct dsa_switch_tree *dst = cpu_dp->dst;
struct dsa_port *dp;
list_for_each_entry(dp, &dst->ports, list)
if (dp->ds->index == device && dp->index == port &&
dp->type == DSA_PORT_TYPE_USER)
return dp->slave;
return NULL;
}
I will try in the following days to make a prototype implementation of
converting back the linked list into an array and see if there is any
justifiable performance improvement.
[ even if this would make the "multiple CPU ports in LAG" implementation
harder ]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists