Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-215195-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:04:07 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>, Eric Dumazet 
 <edumazet@google.com>, 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: <20240614120407.3eb2ac80@rorschach.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <834b61b93df3cbf5053e459f337e622e2c510fbd.camel@redhat.com>
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=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 16:08:42 +0200
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:

> > Is this what we want or not?  
> 
> 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. 

That makes sense to me.

-- Steve