From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:14:14 -0700
> From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> > > As measured in my prior patch ("sch_netem: faster rb tree removal"), > rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe() is nice looking but much slower > than using rb_next() directly, except when tree is small enough > to fit in CPU caches (then the cost is the same) > > From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> Applied, thanks Eric.
