Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-215196-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 18:04:45 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@kernel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 08/15] net: softnet_data: Make xmit.recursion
 per task.
Message-ID: <20240614160445.UdPsIOTW@linutronix.de>
References: <20240612170303.3896084-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20240612170303.3896084-9-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20240612131829.2e33ca71@rorschach.local.home>
 <20240614082758.6pSMV3aq@linutronix.de>
 <CANn89i+YfdmKSMgHni4ogMDq0BpFQtjubA0RxXcfZ8fpgV5_fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240614094809.gvOugqZT@linutronix.de>
 <834b61b93df3cbf5053e459f337e622e2c510fbd.camel@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <834b61b93df3cbf5053e459f337e622e2c510fbd.camel@redhat.com>

On 2024-06-14 16:08:42 [+0200], Paolo Abeni wrote:
> 
> I personally think (fear mostly) there is still the potential for some
> (performance) regression. I think it would be safer to introduce this
> change under a compiler conditional and eventually follow-up with a
> patch making the code generic.
> 
> Should such later change prove to be problematic, we could revert it
> without impacting the series as a whole. 

Sounds reasonable. In that case let me stick with "v6.5" of this patch
(as just posted due the `more' member) and then I could introduce an
option for !RT to use this optionally so it can be tested widely.

> Thanks!
> 
> Paolo

Sebastian