RE: [PATCH] soreuseport: use "unsigned int" in __reuseport_alloc()

2017-04-05 Thread David Laight
From: Alexey Dobriyan > Sent: 04 April 2017 12:36 > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Craig Gallek wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > >> Number of sockets is limited by 16-bit, so 64-bit allocation will never > >> happen.

Re: [PATCH] soreuseport: use "unsigned int" in __reuseport_alloc()

2017-04-04 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Craig Gallek wrote: > On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: >> Number of sockets is limited by 16-bit, so 64-bit allocation will never >> happen. >> >> 16-bit ops are the worst code density-wise on

Re: [PATCH] soreuseport: use "unsigned int" in __reuseport_alloc()

2017-04-03 Thread David Miller
From: Alexey Dobriyan Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 01:18:23 +0300 > Number of sockets is limited by 16-bit, so 64-bit allocation will never > happen. > > 16-bit ops are the worst code density-wise on x86_64 because of > additional prefix (66). > > Space savings: > >

Re: [PATCH] soreuseport: use "unsigned int" in __reuseport_alloc()

2017-04-03 Thread Craig Gallek
On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > Number of sockets is limited by 16-bit, so 64-bit allocation will never > happen. > > 16-bit ops are the worst code density-wise on x86_64 because of > additional prefix (66). So this boils down to a compiled code

[PATCH] soreuseport: use "unsigned int" in __reuseport_alloc()

2017-04-02 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
Number of sockets is limited by 16-bit, so 64-bit allocation will never happen. 16-bit ops are the worst code density-wise on x86_64 because of additional prefix (66). Space savings: add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-3 (-3) function