netdev - Re: [next-queue 1/3] i40e: Store the irq number in i40e_q

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 5 Oct 2022 12:37:19 -0700
From:   Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To:     Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
CC:     Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kuba@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [next-queue 1/3] i40e: Store the irq number in i40e_q_vector

On 10/5/2022 11:40 AM, Joe Damato wrote:

>> If you're really wanting to reorganize these structs I'd prefer a bit more
>> diligent effort to prove no inadvertent side effects (like maybe by turning
>> up the interrupt rate and looking at perf data while receiving 512 byte
>> packets. The rate should remain the same (or better) and the number of cache
>> misses on these structs should remain roughly the same. Maybe a seperate
>> patch series?
> 
> I honestly did think that reorganizing the struct was probably out of scope
> of this change, so if you agree so I'll drop this change from the v2 and
> keep the original which adds irq_num to the end of the struct.

I agree, especially in these routines, doing simple, 
explainable/observable changes is best.