From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751480AbcB2H0I (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 02:26:08 -0500 Received: from pegase1.c-s.fr ([93.17.236.30]:21080 "EHLO mailhub1.si.c-s.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751017AbcB2H0E (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 02:26:04 -0500 From: Christophe Leroy Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] powerpc: inline ip_fast_csum() To: Denis Kirjanov References: <807dbc9449077e36752c649c09ae1c0d70e45254.1442876807.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , scottwood@freescale.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <56D3F287.6020707@c-s.fr> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:25:59 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le 23/09/2015 07:43, Denis Kirjanov a écrit : > On 9/22/15, Christophe Leroy wrote: >> In several architectures, ip_fast_csum() is inlined >> There are functions like ip_send_check() which do nothing >> much more than calling ip_fast_csum(). >> Inlining ip_fast_csum() allows the compiler to optimise better > Hi Christophe, > I did try it and see no difference on ppc64. Did you test with socklib > with modified loopback and if so do you have any numbers? Hi Denis, I put a mftbl at start and end of ip_send_check() and tested on a MPC885: * Without ip_fast_csum() inlined, approxymatly 7 TB ticks are spent in ip_send_check() * With ip_fast_csum() inlined, approxymatly 5,4 TB ticks are spent in ip_send_check() So it is about 23% time reduction. Christophe