Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] skbuff: introduce skbuff_heads bulking and
 reusing
To:     Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
        Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com>,
        Yadu Kishore <kyk.segfault@gmail.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210111182655.12159-1-alobakin@pm.me>
From:   Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d4f4b6ba-fb3b-d873-23b2-4b5ba9cf4db8@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:54:04 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210111182655.12159-1-alobakin@pm.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Without wishing to weigh in on whether this caching is a good idea...
Wouldn't it be simpler, rather than having two separate "alloc" and "flush"
 caches, to have a single larger cache, such that whenever it becomes full
 we bulk flush the top half, and when it's empty we bulk alloc the bottom
 half?  That should mean fewer branches, fewer instructions etc. than
 having to decide which cache to act upon every time.

-ed