[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250818071334.240913-1-jackzxcui1989@163.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 15:13:34 +0800
From: Xin Zhao <jackzxcui1989@....com>
To: willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
edumazet@...gle.com,
ferenc@...es.dev
Cc: davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com,
horms@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: af_packet: Use hrtimer to do the retire operation
On Sun, 2025-08-17 at 21:28 +0800, Willem wrote:
> Here we cannot use hrtimer_add_expires for the same reason you gave in
> the second version of the patch:
>
> > Additionally, I think we cannot avoid using ktime_get, as the retire
> > timeout for each block is not fixed. When there are a lot of network packets,
> > a block can retire quickly, and if we do not re-fetch the time, the timeout
> > duration may be set incorrectly.
>
> Is that right?
>
> Otherwise patch LGTM.
Dear Willem,
While reviewing the code, I suddenly realized that previously I used
hrtimer_set_expires instead of hrtimer_forward_now to resolve the situation when
handling the retire timer timeout while run into prb_open_block simultaneously.
However, since there is now a distinction with the bool start variable in PATCH v4,
it seems that we no longer need to use hrtimer_set_expires and can directly use
hrtimer_forward_now instead. Therefore, I plan to make this change immediately and
resend PATCH v4. Please take a look at it then.
Thanks
Xin Zhao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists