From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dave@taht.net>
Received: from mail.taht.net (mail.taht.net
 [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:7028])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 108B73B2A4
 for <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:07:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nemesis.taht.net (unknown
 [IPv6:2603:3024:1536:86f0:2e0:4cff:fec1:1206])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.taht.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA63421341;
 Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:07:23 +0000 (UTC)
From: Dave Taht <dave@taht.net>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>, ryan@mounce.com.au 
Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
References: <1510945885-9986-1-git-send-email-dave.taht@gmail.com>
 <1510945885-9986-3-git-send-email-dave.taht@gmail.com>
 <8760a81y3s.fsf@nemesis.taht.net>
 <5fbd8b62-f557-d9f6-0396-8bd9135b7c74@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:07:22 -0800
In-Reply-To: <5fbd8b62-f557-d9f6-0396-8bd9135b7c74@gmail.com> (Jonathan
 Morton's message of "Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:29:44 +0200")
Message-ID: <87h8tntpqt.fsf@nemesis.taht.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [Cake] [RFC PATCH 2/3] Add cake related includes and source
	files
X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation <cake.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/cake>,
 <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cake>
List-Post: <mailto:cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake>,
 <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:07:25 -0000

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> writes:

> On 17/11/17 21:52, Dave Taht wrote:
>>> /* please try to keep this structure <= 64 bytes */
>
>> Is it?
>
> Assuming 'struct list_head' is two pointers, it's marginal on a 64-bit box but
> definitely less on 32-bit (where it's more likely to be important).  The extra
> 'ackcheck' pointer doesn't exactly help here, but I haven't yet had time to
> examine the logic behind it.

Yes, I am unfond of that being always on the hot path presently.