Local variable ordering (was Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] Reduce cache miss for snmp_fold_field)

2016-09-28 Thread Edward Cree
On 28/09/16 14:45, hejianet wrote: > > > On 9/28/16 5:08 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Jia He >> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:22:21 +0800 >> >>> v5: >>> - order local variables from longest to shortest line >> I still see many cases where this problem still exists. Please >> do not resubmit this

Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] Reduce cache miss for snmp_fold_field

2016-09-28 Thread hejianet
On 9/28/16 5:08 PM, David Miller wrote: From: Jia He Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:22:21 +0800 v5: - order local variables from longest to shortest line I still see many cases where this problem still exists. Please do not resubmit this patch series until you fix all of them. Patch #2: -stat

Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] Reduce cache miss for snmp_fold_field

2016-09-28 Thread David Miller
From: Jia He Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:22:21 +0800 > v5: > - order local variables from longest to shortest line I still see many cases where this problem still exists. Please do not resubmit this patch series until you fix all of them. Patch #2: -static int snmp_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq

[PATCH v5 0/7] Reduce cache miss for snmp_fold_field

2016-09-27 Thread Jia He
In a PowerPc server with large cpu number(160), besides commit a3a773726c9f ("net: Optimize snmp stat aggregation by walking all the percpu data at once"), I watched several other snmp_fold_field callsites which would cause high cache miss rate. test source code: My simple test ca