Re: [PATCH net-next V2 3/3] net: Add GRO support for vxlan traffic

[Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>]

On 07/01/2014 23:09, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 21:43 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> Why ^ instead of != ?
>>>> The XOR approach is very popular in the GRO stack, e.g see the IPv4 chain
>>>> of inet_gro_receive() && tcp_gro_receive(), I guess this might relates
>>>> to more efficient assembly code for ^ vs. != and/or the fast/elegant
>>>> transitive nature of that operator
>>> This trick is only needed/used when many compares are folded into a
>>> single conditional :
>>>
>>> if (a->f1 != b->f1 || a->f2 != b->f2)
>>>
>>> ->
>>>
>>> if (((a->f1 ^ b->f1) | (a->f2 ^ b->f2)) != 0)
>>>
>>> Please do not use XOR for a single compare.
>> OK, but just out of curiosity -- what's the reasoning? clarity or
>> efficiency or both?
> Both. Compiling a simple program and comparing alternatives: gcc
> produced the identical code for the single conditional (^ vs !=)
> using the cmp instruction. Testing the two conditional case like Eric
> provided; the second method (using ^) resulted in 4 more instructions,
> but only one branch as opposed to two in the first method (!=). Method
> #1 has the advantage of short circuiting when the first condition is
> true, so organizing the conditionals to maximize the probability of
> short circuit could be beneficial.

OK, I will follow that.

Or.