Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 28 Sep 2016 05:08:17 -0400 (EDT) | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] Reduce cache miss for snmp_fold_field | From | David Miller <> |
| |
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".
+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.
| |