[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51CD1FEA.5020603@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:32:26 +0300
From: Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@...il.com>,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>, HPA <hpa@...or.com>,
Eilon Greenstien <eilong@...adcom.com>,
Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>,
Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
Alex Rosenbaum <alexr@...lanox.com>,
Eliezer Tamir <eliezer@...ir.org.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next] net: poll/select low latency socket support
On 28/06/2013 07:43, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> @@ -400,6 +402,8 @@ int do_select(int n, fd_set_bits *fds, struct timespec *end_time)
>> poll_table *wait;
>> int retval, i, timed_out = 0;
>> unsigned long slack = 0;
>> + unsigned int ll_flag = POLL_LL;
>> + u64 ll_time = ll_end_time();
>
> So you're adding a sched_clock to every select call, even if it has
> nothing to do with ll?
>
> That seems rather drastic. select can be performance critical.
would the following be acceptable?
unsigned int ll_flag = ll_poll_enabled(); // returns POLL_LL if on
u64 ll_time = ll_flag ? ll_end_time() : 0;
and at the other side
if (ll_flag && can_poll_ll(ll_end_time))
continue;
-Eliezer
--
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