From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 00/12] net: stmmac: Clean-up and tune-up
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 14:56:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <20180516.145611.65752290278287985.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <cover.1526474646.git.joabreu@synopsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com,
        Vitor.Soares@synopsys.com, peppe.cavallaro@st.com,
        alexandre.torgue@st.com
To: Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:44084 "EHLO
        shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751013AbeEPS4N (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 16 May 2018 14:56:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <cover.1526474646.git.joabreu@synopsys.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

From: Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:50:42 +0100

> David raised some rightfull constrains about the use of indirect callbacks in
> the code. I did iperf tests with and without patches 3-12 and the performance
> remained equal. I guess for 1Gb/s and because my setup has a powerfull
> processor these patches don't affect the performance.

Does your cpu need Spectre v1 and v2 workarounds which cause indirect calls to
be extremely expensive?

That's the case I'm worried about.