From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Kevin Hao <haokexin@gmail.com>
Cc: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] net: macb: Consolidate MACB_CAPS_ISR_CLEAR_ON_WRITE checks in IRQ handler
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 19:54:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260331195400.16bb697c@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260328-macb-irq-v1-2-7b3e622fb46c@gmail.com>
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 18:17:46 +0800 Kevin Hao wrote:
> Currently, the MACB_CAPS_ISR_CLEAR_ON_WRITE flag is checked in every
> branch of the IRQ handler. This repeated evaluation is unnecessary.
> By consolidating the flag check, we eliminate redundant loads of
> bp->caps when TX and RX events occur simultaneously, a common scenario
> under high network throughput. Additionally, this optimization reduces
> the function size from 0x2e8 to 0x2c4.
feels a bit subjective TBH. An alternative improvement would be to
factor out the conditional to a helper:
static void macb_queue_isr_clear(bp, queue, mask)
{
if (bp->caps & MACB_CAPS_ISR_CLEAR_ON_WRITE)
queue_writel(queue, ISR, mask);
}
I'd like an ack one way or the other from someone before merging this
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-01 2:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-28 10:17 [PATCH net-next 0/4] net: macb: Remove dedicated IRQ handler for WoL Kevin Hao
2026-03-28 10:17 ` [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: macb: Replace open-coded implementation with napi_schedule() Kevin Hao
2026-03-28 10:17 ` [PATCH net-next 2/4] net: macb: Consolidate MACB_CAPS_ISR_CLEAR_ON_WRITE checks in IRQ handler Kevin Hao
2026-04-01 2:54 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2026-04-01 9:30 ` Kevin Hao
2026-04-01 11:49 ` Nicolai Buchwitz
2026-04-02 13:44 ` Kevin Hao
2026-03-28 10:17 ` [PATCH net-next 3/4] net: macb: Factor out the handling of non-hot IRQ events into a separate function Kevin Hao
2026-04-01 2:54 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-04-01 9:31 ` Kevin Hao
2026-03-28 10:17 ` [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: macb: Remove dedicated IRQ handler for WoL Kevin Hao
2026-04-01 2:55 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-04-01 9:32 ` Kevin Hao
2026-04-03 16:17 ` [PATCH net-next 0/4] " Simon Horman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260331195400.16bb697c@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=haokexin@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.ferre@microchip.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox