[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240411032450.51649-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:24:50 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: edumazet@...gle.com,
pablo@...filter.org,
kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com,
davem@...emloft.net,
horms@...nel.org,
aleksander.lobakin@...el.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kerneljasonxing@...il.com,
Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next] net: save some cycles when doing skb_attempt_defer_free()
From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Normally, we don't face these two exceptions very often meanwhile
we have some chance to meet the condition where the current cpu id
is the same as skb->alloc_cpu.
One simple test that can help us see the frequency of this statement
'cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()':
1. running iperf -s and iperf -c [ip] -P [MAX CPU]
2. using BPF to capture skb_attempt_defer_free()
I can see around 4% chance that happens to satisfy the statement.
So moving this statement at the beginning can save some cycles in
most cases.
Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
---
net/core/skbuff.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
index ab970ded8a7b..b4f252dc91fb 100644
--- a/net/core/skbuff.c
+++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
@@ -7002,9 +7002,9 @@ void skb_attempt_defer_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
unsigned int defer_max;
bool kick;
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
+ if (cpu == raw_smp_processor_id() ||
!cpu_online(cpu) ||
- cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()) {
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)) {
nodefer: kfree_skb_napi_cache(skb);
return;
}
--
2.37.3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists