Re: [PATCH] skbuff: remove pointless conditional before kfree_skb()

[Flavio Leitner <fbl@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:12:34 -0700
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 21:10 +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote:
> > From: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@trendmicro.com.cn>
> > 
> > Remove pointless conditional before kfree_skb().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@trendmicro.com.cn>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/skbuff.h | 3 +--
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> > index 7632c87..0b846d9 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> > @@ -2464,8 +2464,7 @@ static inline void nf_conntrack_get_reasm(struct sk_buff *skb)
> >  }
> >  static inline void nf_conntrack_put_reasm(struct sk_buff *skb)
> >  {
> > -	if (skb)
> > -		kfree_skb(skb);
> > +	kfree_skb(skb);
> >  }
> >  #endif
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_BRIDGE_NETFILTER
> > 
> 
> 
> Its not exactly pointless.
> 
> Its a tradeoff between kernel code size, and ability for cpu to predict
> a branch in kfree_skb()
> 
> This test is in hot path, and therefore this patch can potentially have
> a performance impact.
> 
> I really think most kfree_skb() calls are done with a non NULL param,
> so the branch prediction is good.
> 
> But after this patch, things are totally different.
>

But then the kfree_skb() is somewhat misleading because it does
check for NULL argument. One would have to remember if it's in
hot path or not. So, what about a new macro to pair with
kfree_skb()? That would document the code and would also
make easier to remember about the performance issue.

For instance:
/* kfree_skb() version to be used in hot code path
 * as the branch prediction can improve performance
 */
#define kfree_skb_hot(skb)	\
	if (skb)		\
		kfree_skb(skb)	\


fbl