Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: use this_cpu_xxx replace percpu_xxx funcs
On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 01:03 -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: "Alex,Shi" > Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:45:33 +0800 > > >> percpu_xxx funcs are duplicated with this_cpu_xxx funcs, so replace > >> them > >> for further code clean up. > >> > >> And in preempt safe scenario, __this_cpu_xxx funcs has a bit better > >> performance since __this_cpu_xxx has no redundant preempt_disable() > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi > >> --- > >> net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c | 12 ++-- > >> net/socket.c |4 ++-- > >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > >> >>> > >> >>> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks ! > >> >> > >> >> Anyone like to pick up this patch? or more comments for this? > >> > > >> > Kaber, David: > >> > I appreciate for your any comments on this. Could you like do me a > >> > favor? > >> > >> No objections from me. > > > > rend this patch for 3.2.0 kernel with Eric's Ack. > > > > David, do you have any concerns for this patch? I will very appreciate > > if it can met 3.3 open window. > > Please just submit it directly with the other this_cpu() patches: > > Acked-by: David S. Miller Thanks a lot! :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: use this_cpu_xxx replace percpu_xxx funcs
From: "Alex,Shi" Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:45:33 +0800 >> percpu_xxx funcs are duplicated with this_cpu_xxx funcs, so replace them >> for further code clean up. >> >> And in preempt safe scenario, __this_cpu_xxx funcs has a bit better >> performance since __this_cpu_xxx has no redundant preempt_disable() >> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi >> --- >> net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c | 12 ++-- >> net/socket.c |4 ++-- >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >>> >> >>> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet >> >>> >> >>> Thanks ! >> >> >> >> Anyone like to pick up this patch? or more comments for this? >> > >> > Kaber, David: >> > I appreciate for your any comments on this. Could you like do me a >> > favor? >> >> No objections from me. > > rend this patch for 3.2.0 kernel with Eric's Ack. > > David, do you have any concerns for this patch? I will very appreciate > if it can met 3.3 open window. Please just submit it directly with the other this_cpu() patches: Acked-by: David S. Miller -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: use this_cpu_xxx replace percpu_xxx funcs
> >>>> percpu_xxx funcs are duplicated with this_cpu_xxx funcs, so replace them
> >>>> for further code clean up.
> >>>>
> >>>> And in preempt safe scenario, __this_cpu_xxx funcs has a bit better
> >>>> performance since __this_cpu_xxx has no redundant preempt_disable()
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
> >>>> ---
> >>>> net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c | 12 ++--
> >>>> net/socket.c |4 ++--
> >>>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet
> >>>
> >>> Thanks !
> >>
> >> Anyone like to pick up this patch? or more comments for this?
> >
> > Kaber, David:
> > I appreciate for your any comments on this. Could you like do me a
> > favor?
>
> No objections from me.
rend this patch for 3.2.0 kernel with Eric's Ack.
David, do you have any concerns for this patch? I will very appreciate
if it can met 3.3 open window.
-
>From 037bd159fdf52b915e452fac8db2252b1c60297e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Shi
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:52:17 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] net: use this_cpu_xxx replace percpu_xxx funcs
percpu_xxx funcs are duplicated with this_cpu_xxx funcs, so replace them
for further code clean up.
And in preempt safe scenario, __this_cpu_xxx funcs has a bit better
performance since __this_cpu_xxx has no redundant preempt_disable()
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
Acked-by: Eric Dumazet
---
net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c | 12 ++--
net/socket.c |4 ++--
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c b/net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c
index 5f054a0..678084c 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ tee_tg4(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct xt_action_param
*par)
const struct xt_tee_tginfo *info = par->targinfo;
struct iphdr *iph;
- if (percpu_read(tee_active))
+ if (__this_cpu_read(tee_active))
return XT_CONTINUE;
/*
* Copy the skb, and route the copy. Will later return %XT_CONTINUE for
@@ -127,9 +127,9 @@ tee_tg4(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct xt_action_param
*par)
ip_send_check(iph);
if (tee_tg_route4(skb, info)) {
- percpu_write(tee_active, true);
+ __this_cpu_write(tee_active, true);
ip_local_out(skb);
- percpu_write(tee_active, false);
+ __this_cpu_write(tee_active, false);
} else {
kfree_skb(skb);
}
@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ tee_tg6(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct xt_action_param
*par)
{
const struct xt_tee_tginfo *info = par->targinfo;
- if (percpu_read(tee_active))
+ if (__this_cpu_read(tee_active))
return XT_CONTINUE;
skb = pskb_copy(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
if (skb == NULL)
@@ -188,9 +188,9 @@ tee_tg6(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct xt_action_param
*par)
--iph->hop_limit;
}
if (tee_tg_route6(skb, info)) {
- percpu_write(tee_active, true);
+ __this_cpu_write(tee_active, true);
ip6_local_out(skb);
- percpu_write(tee_active, false);
+ __this_cpu_write(tee_active, false);
} else {
kfree_skb(skb);
}
diff --git a/net/socket.c b/net/socket.c
index ffe92ca..4b62ca9 100644
--- a/net/socket.c
+++ b/net/socket.c
@@ -479,7 +479,7 @@ static struct socket *sock_alloc(void)
inode->i_uid = current_fsuid();
inode->i_gid = current_fsgid();
- percpu_add(sockets_in_use, 1);
+ this_cpu_add(sockets_in_use, 1);
return sock;
}
@@ -522,7 +522,7 @@ void sock_release(struct socket *sock)
if (rcu_dereference_protected(sock->wq, 1)->fasync_list)
printk(KERN_ERR "sock_release: fasync list not empty!\n");
- percpu_sub(sockets_in_use, 1);
+ this_cpu_sub(sockets_in_use, 1);
if (!sock->file) {
iput(SOCK_INODE(sock));
return;
--
1.6.3.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: use this_cpu_xxx replace percpu_xxx funcs
On 02.12.2011 03:33, Alex,Shi wrote: > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 17:00 +0800, Alex,Shi wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 16:38 +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: >>> Le jeudi 20 octobre 2011 à 15:32 +0800, Alex,Shi a écrit : percpu_xxx funcs are duplicated with this_cpu_xxx funcs, so replace them for further code clean up. And in preempt safe scenario, __this_cpu_xxx funcs has a bit better performance since __this_cpu_xxx has no redundant preempt_disable() Signed-off-by: Alex Shi --- net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c | 12 ++-- net/socket.c |4 ++-- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>> >>> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet >>> >>> Thanks ! >> >> Anyone like to pick up this patch? or more comments for this? > > Kaber, David: > I appreciate for your any comments on this. Could you like do me a > favor? No objections from me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: use this_cpu_xxx replace percpu_xxx funcs
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 17:00 +0800, Alex,Shi wrote: > On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 16:38 +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > Le jeudi 20 octobre 2011 à 15:32 +0800, Alex,Shi a écrit : > > > percpu_xxx funcs are duplicated with this_cpu_xxx funcs, so replace them > > > for further code clean up. > > > > > > And in preempt safe scenario, __this_cpu_xxx funcs has a bit better > > > performance since __this_cpu_xxx has no redundant preempt_disable() > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi > > > --- > > > net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c | 12 ++-- > > > net/socket.c |4 ++-- > > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > Acked-by: Eric Dumazet > > > > Thanks ! > > Anyone like to pick up this patch? or more comments for this? Kaber, David: I appreciate for your any comments on this. Could you like do me a favor? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: use this_cpu_xxx replace percpu_xxx funcs
On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 16:38 +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le jeudi 20 octobre 2011 à 15:32 +0800, Alex,Shi a écrit : > > percpu_xxx funcs are duplicated with this_cpu_xxx funcs, so replace them > > for further code clean up. > > > > And in preempt safe scenario, __this_cpu_xxx funcs has a bit better > > performance since __this_cpu_xxx has no redundant preempt_disable() > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi > > --- > > net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c | 12 ++-- > > net/socket.c |4 ++-- > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > Acked-by: Eric Dumazet > > Thanks ! Anyone like to pick up this patch? or more comments for this? > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: use this_cpu_xxx replace percpu_xxx funcs
Le jeudi 20 octobre 2011 à 15:32 +0800, Alex,Shi a écrit : > percpu_xxx funcs are duplicated with this_cpu_xxx funcs, so replace them > for further code clean up. > > And in preempt safe scenario, __this_cpu_xxx funcs has a bit better > performance since __this_cpu_xxx has no redundant preempt_disable() > > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi > --- > net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c | 12 ++-- > net/socket.c |4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) Acked-by: Eric Dumazet Thanks ! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH 1/3] net: use this_cpu_xxx replace percpu_xxx funcs
percpu_xxx funcs are duplicated with this_cpu_xxx funcs, so replace them
for further code clean up.
And in preempt safe scenario, __this_cpu_xxx funcs has a bit better
performance since __this_cpu_xxx has no redundant preempt_disable()
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
---
net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c | 12 ++--
net/socket.c |4 ++--
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c b/net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c
index 5f054a0..678084c 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/xt_TEE.c
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ tee_tg4(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct xt_action_param
*par)
const struct xt_tee_tginfo *info = par->targinfo;
struct iphdr *iph;
- if (percpu_read(tee_active))
+ if (__this_cpu_read(tee_active))
return XT_CONTINUE;
/*
* Copy the skb, and route the copy. Will later return %XT_CONTINUE for
@@ -127,9 +127,9 @@ tee_tg4(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct xt_action_param
*par)
ip_send_check(iph);
if (tee_tg_route4(skb, info)) {
- percpu_write(tee_active, true);
+ __this_cpu_write(tee_active, true);
ip_local_out(skb);
- percpu_write(tee_active, false);
+ __this_cpu_write(tee_active, false);
} else {
kfree_skb(skb);
}
@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ tee_tg6(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct xt_action_param
*par)
{
const struct xt_tee_tginfo *info = par->targinfo;
- if (percpu_read(tee_active))
+ if (__this_cpu_read(tee_active))
return XT_CONTINUE;
skb = pskb_copy(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
if (skb == NULL)
@@ -188,9 +188,9 @@ tee_tg6(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct xt_action_param
*par)
--iph->hop_limit;
}
if (tee_tg_route6(skb, info)) {
- percpu_write(tee_active, true);
+ __this_cpu_write(tee_active, true);
ip6_local_out(skb);
- percpu_write(tee_active, false);
+ __this_cpu_write(tee_active, false);
} else {
kfree_skb(skb);
}
diff --git a/net/socket.c b/net/socket.c
index ffe92ca..4b62ca9 100644
--- a/net/socket.c
+++ b/net/socket.c
@@ -479,7 +479,7 @@ static struct socket *sock_alloc(void)
inode->i_uid = current_fsuid();
inode->i_gid = current_fsgid();
- percpu_add(sockets_in_use, 1);
+ this_cpu_add(sockets_in_use, 1);
return sock;
}
@@ -522,7 +522,7 @@ void sock_release(struct socket *sock)
if (rcu_dereference_protected(sock->wq, 1)->fasync_list)
printk(KERN_ERR "sock_release: fasync list not empty!\n");
- percpu_sub(sockets_in_use, 1);
+ this_cpu_sub(sockets_in_use, 1);
if (!sock->file) {
iput(SOCK_INODE(sock));
return;
--
1.6.3.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
