Re: [RFC net-next-2.6] net: speedup sk_wake_async()

[Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>]

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Latency works, part 1
> 
> 
> An incoming datagram must bring into cpu cache *lot* of cache lines,
> in particular : (other parts omitted (hash chains, ip route cache...))
> 
> On 32bit arches :

How about 64-bit?

> offsetof(struct sock, sk_rcvbuf)       =0x30    (read)
> offsetof(struct sock, sk_lock)         =0x34   (rw)
> 
> offsetof(struct sock, sk_sleep)        =0x50 (read)
> offsetof(struct sock, sk_rmem_alloc)   =0x64   (rw)
> offsetof(struct sock, sk_receive_queue)=0x74   (rw)
> 
> offsetof(struct sock, sk_forward_alloc)=0x98   (rw)
> 
> offsetof(struct sock, sk_callback_lock)=0xcc    (rw)
> offsetof(struct sock, sk_drops)        =0xd8 (read if we add dropcount support, rw if frame dropped)
> offsetof(struct sock, sk_filter)       =0xf8    (read)
> 
> offsetof(struct sock, sk_socket)       =0x138 (read)
> 
> offsetof(struct sock, sk_data_ready)   =0x15c   (read)
> 
> 
> We can avoid sk->sk_socket and socket->fasync_list referencing on sockets
> with no fasync() structures. (socket->fasync_list ptr is probably already in cache
> because it shares a cache line with socket->wait, ie location pointed by sk->sk_sleep)
> 
> This avoids one cache line load per incoming packet for common cases (no fasync())
> 
> We can leave (or even move in a future patch) sk->sk_socket in a cold location
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>

Got any netperf service demand changes?

rick jones