# Re: \[PATCH v5 0/7\] Reduce cache miss for snmp\_fold\_field

- From: hejianet \<hidden\>
- Date: 2016-09-28 13:45:42 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2016/09/4845229
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2016/09/4844893/t.md

```text


On 9/28/16 5:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jia He <redacted>
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:22:21 +0800
>
>> v5:
>> - order local variables from longest to shortest line
> I still see many cases where this problem still exists.  Please
> do not resubmit this patch series until you fix all of them.
>
> Patch #2:
>
> -static int snmp_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
> +static int snmp_seq_show_ipstats(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
>   {
>   	int i;
> +	u64 buff64[IPSTATS_MIB_MAX];
>   	struct net *net = seq->private;
>
> The order should be "net" then "buff64" then "i".
Sorry for my bad eyesight and quick hand :(
B.R.
Jia
>
> +static int snmp_seq_show_tcp_udp(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +	struct net *net = seq->private;
> +	unsigned long buff[TCPUDP_MIB_MAX];
>
> The order should be "buff", "net", then "i".
>
> Patch #3:
>
> @@ -192,13 +197,19 @@ static void snmp6_seq_show_item(struct seq_file *seq, void __percpu *pcpumib,
>   				const struct snmp_mib *itemlist)
>   {
>   	int i;
> -	unsigned long val;
> -
>   ...
> +	unsigned long buff[SNMP_MIB_MAX];
>
> The order should be "buff" then "i".
>
> @@ -206,10 +217,13 @@ static void snmp6_seq_show_item64(struct seq_file *seq, void __percpu *mib,
>   				  const struct snmp_mib *itemlist, size_t syncpoff)
>   {
>   	int i;
> +	u64 buff64[SNMP_MIB_MAX];
>
> Likewise.
>
> I cannot be any more explicit in my request than this.
>
```