On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 23:09, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 20:57 +0000, Rainer Weikusat wrote: > > > I do agree that keeping the ->sk_data_ready outside of the lock will > > very likely have performance advantages. That's just something I > > wouldn't have undertaken because I'd be reluctant to make a fairly > > complicated change to a lot of code. > > All I am saying is that we can keep current performance. > > We already have the core infrastructure, we only need to properly use > it. > > I will split my changes in two parts. > > One part doing a very boring change of > > rename SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE and SOCK_ASYNC_WAITDATA > for X in SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE SOCK_ASYNC_WAITDATA > > set_bit(X, &sk->sk_socket->flags) -> sk_set_bit(X, sk) > clear_bit(X, &sk->sk_socket->flags) -> sk_clear_bit(X, sk)
sk_set_bit and sk_clear_bit will forward the set_bit and clear_bit into the socket_wq like you explained above? > The rename will help backports to catch code that might have been > removed in recent kernels. > > Then the second patch will do the actual changes, and they will look > very sensible for people wanting to review them, and or familiar with > the stack, do not worry ;) Do you see a chance to inline socket_wq into struct socket and discard struct socket_alloc in one go by rcu in socket_destroy_inode? Thanks, Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
