* [PATCH net-next] net: save some cycles when doing skb_attempt_defer_free()
@ 2024-04-11 3:24 Jason Xing
2024-04-11 5:27 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jason Xing @ 2024-04-11 3:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: edumazet, pablo, kuba, pabeni, davem, horms, aleksander.lobakin
Cc: netdev, kerneljasonxing, Jason Xing
From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
Normally, we don't face these two exceptions very often meanwhile
we have some chance to meet the condition where the current cpu id
is the same as skb->alloc_cpu.
One simple test that can help us see the frequency of this statement
'cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()':
1. running iperf -s and iperf -c [ip] -P [MAX CPU]
2. using BPF to capture skb_attempt_defer_free()
I can see around 4% chance that happens to satisfy the statement.
So moving this statement at the beginning can save some cycles in
most cases.
Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
---
net/core/skbuff.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
index ab970ded8a7b..b4f252dc91fb 100644
--- a/net/core/skbuff.c
+++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
@@ -7002,9 +7002,9 @@ void skb_attempt_defer_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
unsigned int defer_max;
bool kick;
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
+ if (cpu == raw_smp_processor_id() ||
!cpu_online(cpu) ||
- cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()) {
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)) {
nodefer: kfree_skb_napi_cache(skb);
return;
}
--
2.37.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next] net: save some cycles when doing skb_attempt_defer_free()
2024-04-11 3:24 [PATCH net-next] net: save some cycles when doing skb_attempt_defer_free() Jason Xing
@ 2024-04-11 5:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2024-04-11 6:32 ` Jason Xing
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2024-04-11 5:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Xing
Cc: pablo, kuba, pabeni, davem, horms, aleksander.lobakin, netdev,
Jason Xing
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:25 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
>
> Normally, we don't face these two exceptions very often meanwhile
> we have some chance to meet the condition where the current cpu id
> is the same as skb->alloc_cpu.
>
> One simple test that can help us see the frequency of this statement
> 'cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()':
> 1. running iperf -s and iperf -c [ip] -P [MAX CPU]
> 2. using BPF to capture skb_attempt_defer_free()
>
> I can see around 4% chance that happens to satisfy the statement.
> So moving this statement at the beginning can save some cycles in
> most cases.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> ---
> net/core/skbuff.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> index ab970ded8a7b..b4f252dc91fb 100644
> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> @@ -7002,9 +7002,9 @@ void skb_attempt_defer_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
> unsigned int defer_max;
> bool kick;
>
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
> + if (cpu == raw_smp_processor_id() ||
> !cpu_online(cpu) ||
> - cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()) {
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)) {
> nodefer: kfree_skb_napi_cache(skb);
> return;
> }
Wrong patch.
cpu_online(X) is undefined and might crash if X is out of bounds on CONFIG_SMP=y
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next] net: save some cycles when doing skb_attempt_defer_free()
2024-04-11 5:27 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2024-04-11 6:32 ` Jason Xing
2024-04-11 7:11 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jason Xing @ 2024-04-11 6:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet
Cc: pablo, kuba, pabeni, davem, horms, aleksander.lobakin, netdev,
Jason Xing
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 1:27 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:25 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> >
> > Normally, we don't face these two exceptions very often meanwhile
> > we have some chance to meet the condition where the current cpu id
> > is the same as skb->alloc_cpu.
> >
> > One simple test that can help us see the frequency of this statement
> > 'cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()':
> > 1. running iperf -s and iperf -c [ip] -P [MAX CPU]
> > 2. using BPF to capture skb_attempt_defer_free()
> >
> > I can see around 4% chance that happens to satisfy the statement.
> > So moving this statement at the beginning can save some cycles in
> > most cases.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> > ---
> > net/core/skbuff.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > index ab970ded8a7b..b4f252dc91fb 100644
> > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > @@ -7002,9 +7002,9 @@ void skb_attempt_defer_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > unsigned int defer_max;
> > bool kick;
> >
> > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
> > + if (cpu == raw_smp_processor_id() ||
> > !cpu_online(cpu) ||
> > - cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()) {
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)) {
> > nodefer: kfree_skb_napi_cache(skb);
> > return;
> > }
>
> Wrong patch.
>
> cpu_online(X) is undefined and might crash if X is out of bounds on CONFIG_SMP=y
Even if skb->alloc_cpu is larger than nr_cpu_ids, I don't know why the
integer test statement could cause crashing the kernel. It's just a
simple comparison. And if the statement is true,
raw_smp_processor_id() can guarantee the validation, right?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next] net: save some cycles when doing skb_attempt_defer_free()
2024-04-11 6:32 ` Jason Xing
@ 2024-04-11 7:11 ` Eric Dumazet
2024-04-11 7:31 ` Jason Xing
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2024-04-11 7:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Xing
Cc: pablo, kuba, pabeni, davem, horms, aleksander.lobakin, netdev,
Jason Xing
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 8:33 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 1:27 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:25 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> > >
> > > Normally, we don't face these two exceptions very often meanwhile
> > > we have some chance to meet the condition where the current cpu id
> > > is the same as skb->alloc_cpu.
> > >
> > > One simple test that can help us see the frequency of this statement
> > > 'cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()':
> > > 1. running iperf -s and iperf -c [ip] -P [MAX CPU]
> > > 2. using BPF to capture skb_attempt_defer_free()
> > >
> > > I can see around 4% chance that happens to satisfy the statement.
> > > So moving this statement at the beginning can save some cycles in
> > > most cases.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> > > ---
> > > net/core/skbuff.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > index ab970ded8a7b..b4f252dc91fb 100644
> > > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > @@ -7002,9 +7002,9 @@ void skb_attempt_defer_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > unsigned int defer_max;
> > > bool kick;
> > >
> > > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
> > > + if (cpu == raw_smp_processor_id() ||
> > > !cpu_online(cpu) ||
> > > - cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()) {
> > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)) {
> > > nodefer: kfree_skb_napi_cache(skb);
> > > return;
> > > }
> >
> > Wrong patch.
> >
> > cpu_online(X) is undefined and might crash if X is out of bounds on CONFIG_SMP=y
>
> Even if skb->alloc_cpu is larger than nr_cpu_ids, I don't know why the
> integer test statement could cause crashing the kernel. It's just a
> simple comparison. And if the statement is true,
> raw_smp_processor_id() can guarantee the validation, right?
Please read again the code you wrote, or run it with skb->alloc_cpu
being set to 45000 on a full DEBUG kernel.
You are focusing on skb->alloc_cpu == raw_smp_processor_id(), I am
focusing on what happens
when this condition is not true.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next] net: save some cycles when doing skb_attempt_defer_free()
2024-04-11 7:11 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2024-04-11 7:31 ` Jason Xing
2024-04-11 9:11 ` Alexander Lobakin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jason Xing @ 2024-04-11 7:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet
Cc: pablo, kuba, pabeni, davem, horms, aleksander.lobakin, netdev,
Jason Xing
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 3:12 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 8:33 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 1:27 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:25 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> > > >
> > > > Normally, we don't face these two exceptions very often meanwhile
> > > > we have some chance to meet the condition where the current cpu id
> > > > is the same as skb->alloc_cpu.
> > > >
> > > > One simple test that can help us see the frequency of this statement
> > > > 'cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()':
> > > > 1. running iperf -s and iperf -c [ip] -P [MAX CPU]
> > > > 2. using BPF to capture skb_attempt_defer_free()
> > > >
> > > > I can see around 4% chance that happens to satisfy the statement.
> > > > So moving this statement at the beginning can save some cycles in
> > > > most cases.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > net/core/skbuff.c | 4 ++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > index ab970ded8a7b..b4f252dc91fb 100644
> > > > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > @@ -7002,9 +7002,9 @@ void skb_attempt_defer_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > unsigned int defer_max;
> > > > bool kick;
> > > >
> > > > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
> > > > + if (cpu == raw_smp_processor_id() ||
> > > > !cpu_online(cpu) ||
> > > > - cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()) {
> > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)) {
> > > > nodefer: kfree_skb_napi_cache(skb);
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Wrong patch.
> > >
> > > cpu_online(X) is undefined and might crash if X is out of bounds on CONFIG_SMP=y
> >
> > Even if skb->alloc_cpu is larger than nr_cpu_ids, I don't know why the
> > integer test statement could cause crashing the kernel. It's just a
> > simple comparison. And if the statement is true,
> > raw_smp_processor_id() can guarantee the validation, right?
>
> Please read again the code you wrote, or run it with skb->alloc_cpu
> being set to 45000 on a full DEBUG kernel.
>
> You are focusing on skb->alloc_cpu == raw_smp_processor_id(), I am
> focusing on what happens
> when this condition is not true.
Sorry. My bad. I put the wrong order of '!cpu_online(cpu)' and 'cpu >=
nr_cpu_ids'. I didn't consider the out-of-bound issue. I should have
done more checks :(
The correct patch should be:
diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
index ab970ded8a7b..6dc577a3ea6a 100644
--- a/net/core/skbuff.c
+++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
@@ -7002,9 +7002,9 @@ void skb_attempt_defer_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
unsigned int defer_max;
bool kick;
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
- !cpu_online(cpu) ||
- cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()) {
+ if (cpu == raw_smp_processor_id() ||
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
+ !cpu_online(cpu)) {
nodefer: kfree_skb_napi_cache(skb);
return;
}
I will submit V2 tomorrow.
Thanks,
Jason
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next] net: save some cycles when doing skb_attempt_defer_free()
2024-04-11 7:31 ` Jason Xing
@ 2024-04-11 9:11 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-04-11 10:00 ` Jason Xing
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Lobakin @ 2024-04-11 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Xing
Cc: Eric Dumazet, pablo, kuba, pabeni, davem, horms, netdev, Jason Xing
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:31:23 +0800
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 3:12 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 8:33 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 1:27 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:25 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Normally, we don't face these two exceptions very often meanwhile
>>>>> we have some chance to meet the condition where the current cpu id
>>>>> is the same as skb->alloc_cpu.
>>>>>
>>>>> One simple test that can help us see the frequency of this statement
>>>>> 'cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()':
>>>>> 1. running iperf -s and iperf -c [ip] -P [MAX CPU]
>>>>> 2. using BPF to capture skb_attempt_defer_free()
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see around 4% chance that happens to satisfy the statement.
>>>>> So moving this statement at the beginning can save some cycles in
>>>>> most cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> net/core/skbuff.c | 4 ++--
>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
>>>>> index ab970ded8a7b..b4f252dc91fb 100644
>>>>> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
>>>>> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
>>>>> @@ -7002,9 +7002,9 @@ void skb_attempt_defer_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>> unsigned int defer_max;
>>>>> bool kick;
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
>>>>> + if (cpu == raw_smp_processor_id() ||
>>>>> !cpu_online(cpu) ||
>>>>> - cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()) {
>>>>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)) {
>>>>> nodefer: kfree_skb_napi_cache(skb);
>>>>> return;
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Wrong patch.
>>>>
>>>> cpu_online(X) is undefined and might crash if X is out of bounds on CONFIG_SMP=y
>>>
>>> Even if skb->alloc_cpu is larger than nr_cpu_ids, I don't know why the
>>> integer test statement could cause crashing the kernel. It's just a
>>> simple comparison. And if the statement is true,
>>> raw_smp_processor_id() can guarantee the validation, right?
>>
>> Please read again the code you wrote, or run it with skb->alloc_cpu
>> being set to 45000 on a full DEBUG kernel.
>>
>> You are focusing on skb->alloc_cpu == raw_smp_processor_id(), I am
>> focusing on what happens
>> when this condition is not true.
>
> Sorry. My bad. I put the wrong order of '!cpu_online(cpu)' and 'cpu >=
> nr_cpu_ids'. I didn't consider the out-of-bound issue. I should have
> done more checks :(
>
> The correct patch should be:
> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> index ab970ded8a7b..6dc577a3ea6a 100644
> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> @@ -7002,9 +7002,9 @@ void skb_attempt_defer_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
> unsigned int defer_max;
> bool kick;
>
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
> - !cpu_online(cpu) ||
> - cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()) {
> + if (cpu == raw_smp_processor_id() ||
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
> + !cpu_online(cpu)) {
This one looks good to me.
Feel free to add
Reviewed-by: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>
To your v2 before sending.
> nodefer: kfree_skb_napi_cache(skb);
> return;
> }
>
> I will submit V2 tomorrow.
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
Thanks,
Olek
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next] net: save some cycles when doing skb_attempt_defer_free()
2024-04-11 9:11 ` Alexander Lobakin
@ 2024-04-11 10:00 ` Jason Xing
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jason Xing @ 2024-04-11 10:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexander Lobakin
Cc: Eric Dumazet, pablo, kuba, pabeni, davem, horms, netdev, Jason Xing
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:13 PM Alexander Lobakin
<aleksander.lobakin@intel.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:31:23 +0800
>
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 3:12 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 8:33 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 1:27 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:25 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Normally, we don't face these two exceptions very often meanwhile
> >>>>> we have some chance to meet the condition where the current cpu id
> >>>>> is the same as skb->alloc_cpu.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One simple test that can help us see the frequency of this statement
> >>>>> 'cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()':
> >>>>> 1. running iperf -s and iperf -c [ip] -P [MAX CPU]
> >>>>> 2. using BPF to capture skb_attempt_defer_free()
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can see around 4% chance that happens to satisfy the statement.
> >>>>> So moving this statement at the beginning can save some cycles in
> >>>>> most cases.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> net/core/skbuff.c | 4 ++--
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> >>>>> index ab970ded8a7b..b4f252dc91fb 100644
> >>>>> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> >>>>> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> >>>>> @@ -7002,9 +7002,9 @@ void skb_attempt_defer_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
> >>>>> unsigned int defer_max;
> >>>>> bool kick;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
> >>>>> + if (cpu == raw_smp_processor_id() ||
> >>>>> !cpu_online(cpu) ||
> >>>>> - cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()) {
> >>>>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)) {
> >>>>> nodefer: kfree_skb_napi_cache(skb);
> >>>>> return;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> Wrong patch.
> >>>>
> >>>> cpu_online(X) is undefined and might crash if X is out of bounds on CONFIG_SMP=y
> >>>
> >>> Even if skb->alloc_cpu is larger than nr_cpu_ids, I don't know why the
> >>> integer test statement could cause crashing the kernel. It's just a
> >>> simple comparison. And if the statement is true,
> >>> raw_smp_processor_id() can guarantee the validation, right?
> >>
> >> Please read again the code you wrote, or run it with skb->alloc_cpu
> >> being set to 45000 on a full DEBUG kernel.
> >>
> >> You are focusing on skb->alloc_cpu == raw_smp_processor_id(), I am
> >> focusing on what happens
> >> when this condition is not true.
> >
> > Sorry. My bad. I put the wrong order of '!cpu_online(cpu)' and 'cpu >=
> > nr_cpu_ids'. I didn't consider the out-of-bound issue. I should have
> > done more checks :(
> >
> > The correct patch should be:
> > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > index ab970ded8a7b..6dc577a3ea6a 100644
> > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > @@ -7002,9 +7002,9 @@ void skb_attempt_defer_free(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > unsigned int defer_max;
> > bool kick;
> >
> > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
> > - !cpu_online(cpu) ||
> > - cpu == raw_smp_processor_id()) {
> > + if (cpu == raw_smp_processor_id() ||
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) ||
> > + !cpu_online(cpu)) {
>
> This one looks good to me.
> Feel free to add
>
> Reviewed-by: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>
>
> To your v2 before sending.
Thanks! I will:)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-04-11 10:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-04-11 3:24 [PATCH net-next] net: save some cycles when doing skb_attempt_defer_free() Jason Xing
2024-04-11 5:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2024-04-11 6:32 ` Jason Xing
2024-04-11 7:11 ` Eric Dumazet
2024-04-11 7:31 ` Jason Xing
2024-04-11 9:11 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-04-11 10:00 ` Jason Xing
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.