From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: "Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार)" <maheshb@google.com>,
mk.singh@oracle.com, linux-netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"Jay Vosburgh" <j.vosburgh@gmail.com>,
"Veaceslav Falico" <vfalico@gmail.com>,
"Andy Gospodarek" <andy@greyhouse.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding:avoid repeated display of same link status change
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 18:38:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181023163825.GB22291@unicorn.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181023162613.GA22291@unicorn.suse.cz>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:26:14PM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:10:44AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/23/2018 08:54 AM, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote:
> >
> > > Atomic operations are expensive (on certain architectures) and miimon
> > > runs quite frequently. Is the added cost of these atomic operations
> > > even worth just to avoid *duplicate info* messages? This seems like a
> > > overkill!
> >
> > atomic_read() is a simple read, no atomic operation involved.
> >
> > Same remark for atomic_set()
>
> Which makes me wonder if the patch really needs atomic_t.
IMHO it does not. AFAICS multiple instances of bond_mii_monitor() cannot
run simultaneously for the same bond so that there doesn't seem to be
anything to collide with. (And if they could, we would need to test and
set the flag atomically in bond_miimon_inspect().)
Michal Kubecek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-23 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-23 15:29 [PATCH] bonding:avoid repeated display of same link status change mk.singh
2018-10-23 15:54 ` Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार)
2018-10-23 16:10 ` Eric Dumazet
2018-10-23 16:26 ` Michal Kubecek
2018-10-23 16:38 ` Michal Kubecek [this message]
2018-10-25 9:21 ` Manish Kumar Singh
2018-10-25 9:29 ` Michal Kubecek
2018-10-26 6:49 ` Manish Kumar Singh
2018-10-23 18:08 ` David Miller
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-10-31 10:57 mk.singh
2018-11-03 6:31 ` David Miller
2018-11-04 19:41 ` Michal Kubecek
2018-11-20 10:41 ` Manish Kumar Singh
2018-09-17 7:20 [PATCH] bonding: avoid " mk.singh
2018-09-17 14:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2018-09-18 5:05 ` Manish Kumar Singh
2018-09-18 14:00 ` Eric Dumazet
2018-09-24 7:05 ` Manish Kumar Singh
2018-10-22 7:29 ` Manish Kumar Singh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181023163825.GB22291@unicorn.suse.cz \
--to=mkubecek@suse.cz \
--cc=andy@greyhouse.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=j.vosburgh@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maheshb@google.com \
--cc=mk.singh@oracle.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vfalico@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).