From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: [PATCH] [NET] warn when accounting an skb that already has a destructor Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 18:57:44 -0300 Message-ID: <20080505215744.GD21070@ghostprotocols.net> References: <1209972675.3655.15.camel@johannes.berg> <20080505.004017.247102504.davem@davemloft.net> <20080505.120811.211603587.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi, johannes@sipsolutions.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:51674 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758259AbYEEV6A (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 17:58:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080505.120811.211603587.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Em Mon, May 05, 2008 at 12:08:11PM -0700, David Miller escreveu: > From: "Ilpo_J=E4rvinen" > Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 12:43:25 +0300 (EEST) >=20 > > On Mon, 5 May 2008, David Miller wrote: > >=20 > > > From: Johannes Berg > > > Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 09:31:15 +0200 > > >=20 > > > > If we decide to uninline those functions for another reason (us= ed too > > > > much, code size, ...) then we can still do that. > > >=20 > > > Agreed. > >=20 > > According to my measurements the size bloat of those two is > > (x86/32bit, gcc 4.1.2 redhat something): > >=20 > > -1091 40 funcs, 89 +, 1180 -, diff: -1091 --- skb_set_owner_r > > -495 46 funcs, 70 +, 565 -, diff: -495 --- skb_set_owner_w >=20 > That's not too bad, but adding the WARN_ON() we're discussing > will plump that up a bit, percentage wise, which is why I > said we should inline it in such a case. s/inline/uninline/g According to some long e-mail today its worth ~198 unexport patches! 8-= ) - Arnaldo