From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] net_sched: act: remove spinlock in fast path Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 07:25:43 -0400 Message-ID: <55967137.7080806@mojatatu.com> References: <1435842455-30501-1-git-send-email-edumazet@google.com> <1435842455-30501-7-git-send-email-edumazet@google.com> <5595684D.90500@gmail.com> <1435870750.11970.37.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Dumazet , "David S. Miller" , netdev , Alexei Starovoitov , Eric Dumazet To: Eric Dumazet , John Fastabend Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com ([209.85.213.170]:35665 "EHLO mail-ig0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755202AbbGCLZq (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2015 07:25:46 -0400 Received: by igblr2 with SMTP id lr2so138659827igb.0 for ; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 04:25:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1435870750.11970.37.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/02/15 16:59, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 09:35 -0700, John Fastabend wrote: > > Point is to not dirty cache line for every packet ? > > Doing the test means we attempt dirtying only ~HZ times per second, > which really matters to handle millions of packets per second. > > My tests show a good enough performance, not sure we want a percpu thing > for this lastuse field. > Does it harm to always set gact->tcf_tm.lastuse ? cheers, jamal