From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:14:14 -0700
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> As measured in my prior patch ("sch_netem: faster rb tree removal"),
> rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe() is nice looking but much slower
> than using rb_next() directly, except when tree is small enough
> to
From: Eric Dumazet
As measured in my prior patch ("sch_netem: faster rb tree removal"),
rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe() is nice looking but much slower
than using rb_next() directly, except when tree is small enough
to fit in CPU caches (then the cost is the same)
From: Eric Dumazet
---
