On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 10:11:05AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 12:05:56PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > Herbert Xu writes:
> >
> > > See sk_stream_mem_schedule in net/core/stream.c:
> > >
> > > /* Under limit. */
> > > if (atomic_read(sk->sk_prot->memory_allocated) <
> > > sk->sk_prot->sysctl_mem[0]) {
> > > if (*sk->sk_prot->memory_pressure)
> > > *sk->sk_prot->memory_pressure = 0;
> > > return 1;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* Over hard limit. */
> > > if (atomic_read(sk->sk_prot->memory_allocated) >
> > > sk->sk_prot->sysctl_mem[2]) {
> > > sk->sk_prot->enter_memory_pressure();
> > > goto suppress_allocation;
> > > }
> > >
> > > We don't need to reload sk->sk_prot->memory_allocated here.
> >
> > Are you sure? How do you know some other CPU hasn't changed the value
> > in between?
>
> Yes I'm sure, because we don't care if others have increased
> the reservation.
>
> Note that even if we did we'd be using barriers so volatile
> won't do us any good here.
If the load-coalescing is important to performance, why not load into
a local variable?
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
