From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francois Romieu Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] r8152: clear theflagofSCHEDULE_TASKLETin tasklet Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 23:11:49 +0100 Message-ID: <20141108221149.GA26030@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> References: <1394712342-15778-75-Taiwan-albertk@realtek.com> <1394712342-15778-79-Taiwan-albertk@realtek.com> <1394712342-15778-81-Taiwan-albertk@realtek.com> <20141031.161520.3547230591227504.davem@davemloft.net> <0835B3720019904CB8F7AA43166CEEB2ECD8A7@RTITMBSV03.realtek.com.tw> <20141102225307.GA19900@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <0835B3720019904CB8F7AA43166CEEB2ECDFC2@RTITMBSV03.realtek.com.tw> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , nic_swsd , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" To: Hayes Wang Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0835B3720019904CB8F7AA43166CEEB2ECDFC2@RTITMBSV03.realtek.com.tw> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hayes Wang : > Francois Romieu [mailto:romieu@fr.zoreil.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 6:53 AM > [...] > > test_and_clear_bit (dense) or clear_bit would be more idiomatic. > > Excuse me. Any suggestion? > Should I use clear_bit directly, or something else? > Or, do I have to remove this patch? The performance explanation leaves me a bit unconvinced. Without any figure one could simply go for the always locked clear_bit because of: 1. the "I'm racy" message that the open-coded test + set sends 2. the extra work needed to avoid 1 (comment, explain, ...). The extra time could thus be used to see what happens when napi is shoehorned in this tasklet machinery. I'd naively expect it to be relevant for efficiency. I won't mind if your agenda is completely different. :o) -- Ueimor