[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3d2568b9-e275-490d-a412-2fe7a5b096a3@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:33:53 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Tonghao Zhang <tonghao@...aicloud.com>, Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <jv@...sburgh.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
Zengbing Tu <tuzengbing@...iglobal.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: bonding: add bond_is_icmpv6_nd() helper
On 7/14/25 2:53 PM, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
>> 2025年7月14日 15:13,Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> 写道:
>> Hmm, I don’t see much improvement with this patch compared to without it.
>> So I don’t think this update is necessary.
>
> This patch use the skb_header_pointer instead of pskb_network_may_pull. The skb_header_pointer is more efficient than pskb_network_may_pull.
> And use the comm helper can consolidate some duplicate code.
I think the eventual cleanup here is very subjective, especially
compared to the diffstat. Any eventual performance improvement should be
supported by some figures, in relevant tests.
In this specific case I don't think you will be able to measure any
relevant gain; pskb_network_may_pull() could be slower than
skb_header_pointer() only when the headers are not in the liner part,
and that in turns could happen only if we are already on some kind of
slow path.
/P
Powered by blists - more mailing lists