Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To:     'Alexander Lobakin' <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>,
        Albert Huang <huangjie.albert@bytedance.com>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>,
        Petr Machata <petrm@nvidia.com>,
        "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "Antoine Tenart" <atenart@kernel.org>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        "Frederic Weisbecker" <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] net : rps : supoort a single flow to use rps
Thread-Topic: [PATCH] net : rps : supoort a single flow to use rps
Thread-Index: AQHYiw+BtF4BFejA6Eeu6pKM0/Ynka1mGL6A
Date:   Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:09:35 +0000
Message-ID: <2ed297c680f24879aba6f15df7630b96@AcuMS.aculab.com>
References: <20220628140044.65068-1-huangjie.albert@bytedance.com>
 <20220628152956.1407334-1-alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220628152956.1407334-1-alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

....
> I'd suggest to use some flags bitfield instead, so it would be way
> more scalable and at the same time have the pre-determined size. Ar
> per several LKML discussions, `bool` may have different size and
> logics depending on architecture and compiler, so when using it not
> on the stack inside a function, but in a structure, it might be not
> easy then to track cacheline layout etc.
> So, maybe
> 
> 	unsigned long rps_flags;
>  #define RPS_SINGLE_FLOW_ENABLE BIT(0)
> 
> or even
> 
> 	DECLARE_BITMAP(rps_flags);
>  #define RPS_SINGLE_FLOW_ENABLE 0

I don't think BITMAPs are a good idea unless you really
need a lot of bits and (probably) locked accesses.

You can use C bitfields - the compiler doesn't (usually)
make too much of a 'pigs breakfast' of them unless you
needs to set/test multiple ones at the same time.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)