On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 19:42 +0200, Paweł Staszewski wrote:
> # To display the perf.data header info, please use 
> --header/--header-only options.
> #
> #
> # Total Lost Samples: 0
> #
> # Samples: 2M of event 'cycles'
> # Event count (approx.): 1585571545969
> #
> # Children      Self  Command         Shared Object         Symbol
> # ........  ........  ..............  .................... 
> ..............................................
> #
>       1.82%     0.00%  ksoftirqd/43    [kernel.vmlinux]      [k] 
> __softirqentry_text_start
>              |
>               --1.82%--__softirqentry_text_start
>                         |
>                          --1.82%--net_rx_action
>                                    |
>                                     --1.82%--mlx5e_napi_poll
>                                               |
> --1.81%--mlx5e_poll_rx_cq
>                                                          |
> --1.81%--mlx5e_handle_rx_cqe
>                                                                     |
> --1.79%--napi_gro_receive
> |
> --1.78%--netif_receive_skb_internal
> |
> --1.78%--__netif_receive_skb
> |
> --1.78%--__netif_receive_skb_core
> |
> --1.78%--ip_rcv
> |
> --1.78%--ip_rcv_finish
> |
> --1.76%--ip_forward
> |
> --1.76%--ip_forward_finish
> |
> --1.76%--ip_output
> |
> --1.76%--ip_finish_output
> |
> --1.76%--ip_finish_output2
> |
> --1.73%--neigh_resolve_output
> |
> --1.73%--neigh_event_send
> |
> --1.73%--__neigh_event_send
> |
> --1.70%--_raw_write_lock_bh
> queued_write_lock
> queued_write_lock_slowpath
> |
> --1.67%--queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> 
> 

Please try this :
diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
index 
16a1a4c4eb57fa1147f230916e2e62e18ef89562..95e0d7702029b583de8229e3c3eb923f6395b072
 100644
--- a/net/core/neighbour.c
+++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
@@ -991,14 +991,18 @@ static void neigh_timer_handler(unsigned long arg)
 
 int __neigh_event_send(struct neighbour *neigh, struct sk_buff *skb)
 {
-       int rc;
        bool immediate_probe = false;
+       int rc;
+
+       /* We _should_ test this under write_lock_bh(&neigh->lock),
+        * but this is too costly.
+        */
+       if (READ_ONCE(neigh->nud_state) & (NUD_CONNECTED | NUD_DELAY | 
NUD_PROBE))
+               return 0;
 
        write_lock_bh(&neigh->lock);
 
        rc = 0;
-       if (neigh->nud_state & (NUD_CONNECTED | NUD_DELAY | NUD_PROBE))
-               goto out_unlock_bh;
        if (neigh->dead)
                goto out_dead;
 


Reply via email to