Hello,
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> I am still digesting this awesome patch series ;)
Thanks. I don't feel quite comfortable with some
of the changes (mostly XFRM, dst_confirm usage in CXGB) and
I hope the discussion can provide adequate solution.
> Not sure why you used an unlikely() here. TCP for example would hit this
> path quite often.
I was not sure, may be because ACKs can come with lower
rate than the sent packets. Also because non-TCP rarely uses
MSG_CONFIRM. If you still think it is better without unlikely,
I'll remove it.
> So considering sk_dst_pending_confirm might be dirtied quite often,
>
> I am not sure why you placed it in the cache line that contains
> sk_rx_dst (in 1st patch)
I saw your recent changes and was worried if the
sk_dst_confirm() calling on RX can cause unwanted dirtying of
additional cache line. My preliminary analyze pointed
sk_omem_alloc as good candidate for moving to next cache
line. I know how critical is to properly place the new flags,
so I really need recommendations about this.
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <j...@ssi.bg>
