From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 01:51:16 +0200
> Avoid touching file->f_dentry on sockets, since file->private_data directly
> gives us the socket pointer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applied, thanks Eric.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: se
Benjamin LaHaise a écrit :
Please consider the patch below which makes use of file->private_data
to store the pointer to the socket, which avoids touching several
unused cachelines in the dentry and inode in sockfd_lookup.
Hi David
Could you please apply this patch, in continuation of Benj
> No no, the private_data is actually far beyond, even for a L1_CACHE_LINE of
> 128 bytes
Yuck.
>
> (because of the insane struct file_ra_state f_ra. I wish this structure
> were dynamically allocated only for files that really use it)
How about you submit a patch for that instead?
-Andi
-
Andi Kleen a écrit :
David, do you think we could place file->private_data in the same cache
line than file->f_count and file->f_op, so that sockfd_lookup() can access
all the needed information (f_count, f_op, private_data) using one
L1_CACHE_LINE only ?
You mean for 32byte cache lines? Not
> David, do you think we could place file->private_data in the same cache
> line than file->f_count and file->f_op, so that sockfd_lookup() can access
> all the needed information (f_count, f_op, private_data) using one
> L1_CACHE_LINE only ?
You mean for 32byte cache lines? Not sure if there a
From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:06:05 +0200
> Then I wait first that Benjamin patch is included. :)
It's in my net-2.6.14 tree already.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
David S. Miller a écrit :
From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:37:21 +0200
David, do you think we could place file->private_data in the same cache line than file->f_count and file->f_op, so that sockfd_lookup() can
access all the needed information (f_count, f_op, p
From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:37:21 +0200
> David, do you think we could place file->private_data in the same cache line
> than file->f_count and file->f_op, so that sockfd_lookup() can
> access all the needed information (f_count, f_op, private_data) using one
Benjamin LaHaise a écrit :
Please consider the patch below which makes use of file->private_data to
store the pointer to the socket, which avoids touching several unused
cachelines in the dentry and inode in sockfd_lookup.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin LaHaise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -purN 00_v2.6
From: Benjamin LaHaise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:17:37 -0400
> Here is a resend properly signed off.
Applied to net-2.6.14, thanks Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at htt
Here is a resend properly signed off.
Please consider the patch below which makes use of file->private_data to
store the pointer to the socket, which avoids touching several unused
cachelines in the dentry and inode in sockfd_lookup.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin LaHaise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -pur
From: Benjamin LaHaise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:46:55 -0400
> Please consider the patch below which makes use of file->private_data to
> store the pointer to the socket, which avoids touching several unused
> cachelines in the dentry and inode in sockfd_lookup.
Please repor
Hello Dave, all,
Please consider the patch below which makes use of file->private_data to
store the pointer to the socket, which avoids touching several unused
cachelines in the dentry and inode in sockfd_lookup.
diff -purN 00_v2.6.13-rc6/net/socket.c 01_net_file/net/socket.c
--- 00_v2.6.13-rc6
13 matches
Mail list logo
