[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49F76174.6060009@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:05:08 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, haoki@...hat.com, mchan@...adcom.com,
davidel@...ilserver.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll
Christoph Lameter a écrit :
> For the udpping test load these patches have barely any effect:
>
> git2p1 is the first version of the patch
> git2p2 is the second version (this one)
But... udpping does *not* use poll() nor select(), unless I am mistaken ?
If you really want to test this patch with udpping, you might add a poll() call
before recvfrom() :
while(1) {
+ struct pollfd pfd = { .fd = sock, .events = POLLIN};
+ poll(pfd, 1, -1);
nbytes = recvfrom(sock, msg, min(inblocksize, sizeof(msg)),
0, &inad, &inadlen);
if (nbytes < 0) {
perror("recvfrom");
break;
}
if (sendto(sock, msg, nbytes, 0, &inad, inadlen) < 0) {
perror("sendto");
break;
}
}
Part about recvfrom() wakeup avoidance is in David net-2.6 tree, and saves 2 us on udpping here.
Is it what you call git2p1 ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists