From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Klein <osstklei@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Possible eHEA performance issue
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:17:02 +0200
Message-ID: <46A06F7E.901@de.ibm.com>
References: <4634.1184900524@neuling.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Thomas Klein <tklein@de.ibm.com>,
	Jan-Bernd Themann <themann@de.ibm.com>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Raisch <raisch@de.ibm.com>,
	Stefan Roscher <ossrosch@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-ppc <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>, anton@samba.org
To: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mtagate8.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.157]:42721 "EHLO
	mtagate8.de.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1759758AbXGTIRg (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:17:36 -0400
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49])
	by mtagate8.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l6K8HZri175358
	for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:17:35 GMT
Received: from d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.213])
	by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.4) with ESMTP id l6K8HZ3M1216630
	for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:17:35 +0200
Received: from d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l6K8HIuJ004923
	for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:17:19 +0200
In-Reply-To: <4634.1184900524@neuling.org>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

Michael Neuling wrote:
> From ehea_start_xmit in ehea_main.c we have:
> 
>     if (unlikely(atomic_read(&pr->swqe_avail) <= 1)) {
> 	    spin_lock_irqsave(&pr->netif_queue, flags);
> 	    if (unlikely(atomic_read(&pr->swqe_avail) <= 1)) {
> 		    pr->p_stats.queue_stopped++;
> 		    netif_stop_queue(dev);
> 		    pr->queue_stopped = 1;
> 	    }
> 	    spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pr->netif_queue, flags);
>     }
> 
> Since the conditions are the same, isn't it likely that the second 'if'
> is going to be taken.  Hence, shouldn't the second 'unlikely' hint be
> removed or even changed to likely?
> 
> Either way, some documentation here as to why it's done this way would
> be useful.  I assume the atomic_read is cheap compared to the
> spin_unlock_irqsave, so we quickly check swqe_avail before we check it
> again properly with the lock on so we can change some stuff.
> 
> Mikey

Hi Mike,

good point the second if could be a likely(). The impact isn't that big
because the if statement is true in the unlikely() case that the send queue
is full - which doesn't happen often. Anyway we will modify this in one of
the next driver versions. Thanks for the hint!

Thomas