From: 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'
> Sent: 08 December 2017 15:16
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 03:01:31PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > > Sent: 08 December 2017 14:57
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:06:04PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > > From: Xin Long
> > > > > Sent: 08 December 2017 13:04
> > > > ...
> > > > > @@ -264,8 +264,8 @@ struct sctp_datamsg
> > > > > *sctp_datamsg_from_user(struct sctp_association *asoc,
> > > > > frag |= SCTP_DATA_SACK_IMM;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > - chunk = sctp_make_datafrag_empty(asoc, sinfo, len, frag,
> > > > > - 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > + chunk = asoc->stream.si->make_datafrag(asoc, sinfo,
> > > > > len, frag,
> > > > > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > > >
> > > > I know that none of the sctp code is very optimised, but that indirect
> > > > call is going to be horrid.
> > >
> > > Yeah.. but there is no way to avoid the double derreference
> > > considering we only have the asoc pointer in there and we have to
> > > reach the contents of the data chunk operations struct, and the .si
> > > part is the same as 'stream' part as it's a constant offset.
> > ...
> >
> > It isn't only the double indirect, the indirect call itself isn't 'fun'.
>
> I meant in this context.
>
> The indirect call is so we don't have to flood the stack with
> if (old data chunk fmt) {
> ...
> } else {
> ...
> }
>
> So instead of this, we now have some key operations identified and
> wrapped up behind this struct, allowing us to abstract whatever data
> chunk format it is.
Nothing wrong with:
#define foo(asoc, ...) \
if (asoc->new_fmt) \
foo_new(asoc, __VA_LIST__); \
else \
foo_old(asoc, __VA_LIST__);
> > I think there are other hot paths where you've replaced a sizeof()
> > with a ?: clause.
> > Caching the result might be much better.
>
> The only new ?: clause I could find this patchset is on patch 12 and
> has nothing to do with sizeof().
>
> The sizeof() results are indeed cached, as you can see in patch 4:
> +static struct sctp_stream_interleave sctp_stream_interleave_0 = {
> + .data_chunk_len = sizeof(struct sctp_data_chunk),
> and the two helpers on it at the begining of the patch.
I was getting two bits mixed up.
But the code that reads data_chunk_len is following an awful lot of pointers.
David
