On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:08:56AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:04:58PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > > Sent: 08 December 2017 16:00
> > ...
> > > > Is it worth replacing the si struct with an index/enum value, and
> > > > indexing an
>
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 1:29 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Xin Long ...
>> Hi, David, Sorry, I'm not sure we're worrying about the cpu cost or
>> codes style now ?
>>
>> For cpu cost, I think 0x848(%r13) operation must be better than the
>> generated code of if-else.
>
> Nope - the call xxx(%ry
From: Xin Long ...
> Hi, David, Sorry, I'm not sure we're worrying about the cpu cost or
> codes style now ?
>
> For cpu cost, I think 0x848(%r13) operation must be better than the
> generated code of if-else.
Nope - the call xxx(%ryyy) is likely to be a data cache miss and a complete
cpu pipel
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:22 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Xin Long
>> Sent: 08 December 2017 16:18
>>
> ...
>> >> Alternatively you could preform the dereference in two steps (i.e.
>> >> declare an si
>> >> pointer on the stack and set it equal to asoc->stream.si, then deref
>> >> si->make_dat
From: Xin Long
> Sent: 08 December 2017 16:18
>
...
> >> Alternatively you could preform the dereference in two steps (i.e. declare
> >> an si
> >> pointer on the stack and set it equal to asoc->stream.si, then deref
> >> si->make_datafrag at call time. That will at least give the compiler an
>
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:37:34AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:56:30PM -0200, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:06:04PM +, David Laight wrote:
>> > > From: Xin Long
>> > >
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:04:58PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > Sent: 08 December 2017 16:00
> ...
> > > Is it worth replacing the si struct with an index/enum value, and
> > > indexing an
> > > array of method pointer structs? That would save you at least one
>
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> Sent: 08 December 2017 16:00
...
> > Is it worth replacing the si struct with an index/enum value, and indexing
> > an
> > array of method pointer structs? That would save you at least one
> > dereference.
>
> Hmmm, maybe, yes. It would be like
> sctp_stream_inte
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 03:32:54PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'
> > Sent: 08 December 2017 15:16
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 03:01:31PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > > > Sent: 08 December 2017 14:57
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 08,
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:37:34AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:56:30PM -0200, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:06:04PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Xin Long
> > > > Sent: 08 December 2017 13:04
> > > ...
> > > > @@ -264,8 +264,8 @@ s
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:56:30PM -0200, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:06:04PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Xin Long
> > > Sent: 08 December 2017 13:04
> > ...
> > > @@ -264,8 +264,8 @@ struct sctp_datamsg *sctp_datamsg_from_user(struct
> > > sctp_association
From: 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'
> Sent: 08 December 2017 15:16
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 03:01:31PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > > Sent: 08 December 2017 14:57
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:06:04PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > > From: Xin Long
> > >
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 03:01:31PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > Sent: 08 December 2017 14:57
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:06:04PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Xin Long
> > > > Sent: 08 December 2017 13:04
> > > ...
> > > > @@ -264,8 +264,8 @@ struc
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> Sent: 08 December 2017 14:57
>
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:06:04PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Xin Long
> > > Sent: 08 December 2017 13:04
> > ...
> > > @@ -264,8 +264,8 @@ struct sctp_datamsg *sctp_datamsg_from_user(struct
> > > sctp_association *asoc,
>
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:06:04PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Xin Long
> > Sent: 08 December 2017 13:04
> ...
> > @@ -264,8 +264,8 @@ struct sctp_datamsg *sctp_datamsg_from_user(struct
> > sctp_association *asoc,
> > frag |= SCTP_DATA_SACK_IMM;
> > }
From: Xin Long
> Sent: 08 December 2017 13:04
...
> @@ -264,8 +264,8 @@ struct sctp_datamsg *sctp_datamsg_from_user(struct
> sctp_association *asoc,
> frag |= SCTP_DATA_SACK_IMM;
> }
>
> - chunk = sctp_make_datafrag_empty(asoc, sinfo, len, f
To avoid hundreds of checks for the different process on I-DATA chunk,
struct sctp_stream_interleave is defined as a group of functions used
to replace the codes in some place where it needs to do different job
according to if the asoc intl_enabled is set.
With these ops, it only needs to initiali
17 matches
Mail list logo
