Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:54 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Cong Wang > Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:44:59 -0800 >> The only countries you hold netdev are Canada, Japan and Spain >> (to my knowledge). If you check: >> >>

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 21:08 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:44:59 -0800 Cong Wang >> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:12 AM, David Miller

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 21:08 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:44:59 -0800 Cong Wang wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:12 AM, David Miller wrote: > [...] > > > You can keep showing us how expertly you can deflect

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 13:12 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Cong Wang > Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:06:01 -0800 > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:52 AM, David Miller wrote: > >> From: Eric Dumazet > >> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:44:59 -0800 Cong Wang wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:12 AM, David Miller wrote: [...] > > You can keep showing us how expertly you can deflect the real > > issue we are discussion here, but that won't improve the

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

From: Cong Wang Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:44:59 -0800 > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:12 AM, David Miller wrote: > Facepalm is heavily used on Internet: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facepalm#Internet_usage > > it is how people including me react

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Cong Wang wrote: > Of course, there are just too many people too lazy to do a google search: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2013/05/msg00500.html > One more: https://communities.intel.com/thread/28935 (<-- search icmp_send)

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:12 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Cong Wang > Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:06:01 -0800 > >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:52 AM, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Eric Dumazet >>> Date:

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

From: Cong Wang Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:06:01 -0800 > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:52 AM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Eric Dumazet >> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 10:07:04 -0800 >> >>> You really should come to netdev conferences

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:52 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet > Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 10:07:04 -0800 > >> You really should come to netdev conferences so that you understand >> goals and efforts, instead of living in your cave. > > I

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > We are in 2017. Whatever was said in 2013 is irrelevant. > > You really should come to netdev conferences so that you understand > goals and efforts, instead of living in your cave. > > Then you can slap me in the

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 13:52:59 -0500 (EST) David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet > Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 10:07:04 -0800 > > > You really should come to netdev conferences so that you understand > > goals and efforts, instead of living in your

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 10:07 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 09:59 -0800, Cong Wang wrote: [] > > Facepalm... [] > We are in 2017. Whatever was said in 2013 is irrelevant. Unless you morph into the PEOTUS, as a general statement, this is untrue.

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

From: Eric Dumazet Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 10:07:04 -0800 > You really should come to netdev conferences so that you understand > goals and efforts, instead of living in your cave. I completely agree with Eric. Cong we have a very serious problem with you exactly because

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

From: Cong Wang Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:59:34 -0800 > Facepalm... This is completely unnecessary. Discuss facts and real issues, rather than make emotional retorts. Thank you.

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 09:59 -0800, Cong Wang wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 09:42 -0800, Cong Wang wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer > >> wrote: > >> > This reverts

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 09:42 -0800, Cong Wang wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer >> wrote: >> > This reverts commit 9a99d4a50cb8 ("icmp: avoid allocating large struct >>

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 09:42 -0800, Cong Wang wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer > wrote: > > This reverts commit 9a99d4a50cb8 ("icmp: avoid allocating large struct > > on stack"), because struct icmp_bxm no really a large struct, and > > allocating

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 16:04 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > This reverts commit 9a99d4a50cb8 ("icmp: avoid allocating large struct > on stack"), because struct icmp_bxm no really a large struct, and > allocating and free of this small 112 bytes hurts performance. > > Fixes: 9a99d4a50cb8

Re: [net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > This reverts commit 9a99d4a50cb8 ("icmp: avoid allocating large struct > on stack"), because struct icmp_bxm no really a large struct, and > allocating and free of this small 112 bytes hurts performance. The

[net-next PATCH 1/3] Revert "icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"

This reverts commit 9a99d4a50cb8 ("icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack"), because struct icmp_bxm no really a large struct, and allocating and free of this small 112 bytes hurts performance. Fixes: 9a99d4a50cb8 ("icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack") Signed-off-by: Jesper