Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] Reduce cache miss for snmp_fold_field | From | hejianet <> | Date | Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:45:32 +0800 |
| |
On 9/28/16 5:08 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Jia He <hejianet@gmail.com> > 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, void *v) > +static int snmp_seq_show_ipstats(struct seq_file *seq, void *v) > { > int i; > + u64 buff64[IPSTATS_MIB_MAX]; > struct net *net = seq->private; > > The order should be "net" then "buff64" then "i". Sorry for my bad eyesight and quick hand :( B.R. Jia > > +static int snmp_seq_show_tcp_udp(struct seq_file *seq, void *v) > +{ > + int i; > + struct net *net = seq->private; > + unsigned long buff[TCPUDP_MIB_MAX]; > > The order should be "buff", "net", then "i". > > Patch #3: > > @@ -192,13 +197,19 @@ static void snmp6_seq_show_item(struct seq_file *seq, void __percpu *pcpumib, > const struct snmp_mib *itemlist) > { > int i; > - unsigned long val; > - > ... > + unsigned long buff[SNMP_MIB_MAX]; > > The order should be "buff" then "i". > > @@ -206,10 +217,13 @@ static void snmp6_seq_show_item64(struct seq_file *seq, void __percpu *mib, > const struct snmp_mib *itemlist, size_t syncpoff) > { > int i; > + u64 buff64[SNMP_MIB_MAX]; > > Likewise. > > I cannot be any more explicit in my request than this. >
| |