[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] net: introduce a list of device addresses dev_addr_list (v3)
Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 09:35:32AM CEST, wrote:
>Jiri Pirko a écrit :
>> Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 05:33:15PM CEST, wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> +struct netdev_hw_addr {
>>>> + struct list_head list;
>>>> + unsigned char addr[MAX_ADDR_LEN];
>>>> + int refcount;
>>>> + struct rcu_head rcu_head;
>>>> +};
>>> Minor nit, the ordering of elements cause holes that might not be
>>> needed.
>> Agree that ordering might be done better. Will do.
>>> Space saving? is rcu_head needed or would using synchronize_net
>>> make code cleaner and save space.
>> Well I originaly had this done by synchronize_rcu(). Eric argued that it might
>> cause especially __hw_addr_del_multiple_ii() to run long and suggested to use
>> call_rcu() instead. I plan to switch this to kfree_rcu() (or whatever it's
>> called) once it hits the tree.
>Yes, and dont forget we wont save space, as we allocate a full
>cache line to hold a 'struct netdev_hw_addr', since we dont want this
>critical and read_mostly object polluted by a hot spot elsewhere in kernel...
>Considering this, letting 'rcu_head' at the end of structure, even if we
>have an eventual hole on 64 bit arches is not really a problem, and IMHO
>the best thing to do, as rcu_head is only used at dismantle time.

I will order the struct better, there are archs with small cache line size where
it makes sense.

>And yes, maybe kfree_rcu() will makes its way in kernel, eventually :)
>Thank you
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-18 09:47    [W:0.077 / U:64.180 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site