From: Oliver Hartkopp <oliver@hartkopp.net>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Patch: [NET]: Remove CONFIG_PROC_FS depency for pcounter inuse
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:48:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47C950B4.5040703@hartkopp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47C945D7.7050601@cosmosbay.com>
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Oliver Hartkopp a écrit :
>> It's not about the counter implementation but the integration/usage
>> in the networking subsystem.
>>
>> Or does your mentioned patch mean, that the added functions in
>> proto_[un|]register() will also be reverted?
>>
>
> A patch will make inet use percpu_counter instead of pcounter.
>
> Then a zap patch will delete lib/pcounter.c & include/linux/pcounter.h
>
> I dont understand why you say CONFIG_PROC_FS is *forced*.
> I can build a kernel with CONFIG_PROC_FS=n, with working INET.
Right. With enabled CONFIG_EMBEDDED you might have CONFIG_INET with
CONFIG_PROC_FS=n.
But this is not the thing, i wanted to point out.
My major concern was, that "whatever-per-cpu-counters" are
allocated/initialized in "proto_register()" for *every* network protocol
but *only* IPv[4|6] is using these counters (when CONFIG_PROC_FS is set).
I just wanted to point out the situation for network protocols that do
not need any inuse counters. In the current implementation the pcounters
are allocated for every networking protocol in proto_register() which
does not look optimized to me.
Will this change with your patch that uses percpu_counter instead of
pcounter??
Regards,
Oliver
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-01 12:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-01 5:19 Patch: [NET]: Remove CONFIG_PROC_FS depency for pcounter inuse Oliver Hartkopp
2008-03-01 9:03 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-01 11:22 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2008-03-01 12:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-01 12:48 ` Oliver Hartkopp [this message]
2008-03-01 13:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-01 13:52 ` Oliver Hartkopp
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=47C950B4.5040703@hartkopp.net \
--to=oliver@hartkopp.net \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).