[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071016.004434.106264901.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, rdreier@...co.com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] net: Add __napi_sycnhronize() to sync with napi
poll
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:37:03 +1000
>
> On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 14:06 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Note: I use msleep_interruptible(1); just like napi_disable(). However
> > > I'm not too happy that the "hot" loop that results of a pending signal
> > > here will spin without even a cpu_relax ... what do you guys think would
> > > be the best way to handle this ?
> >
> > Well since the loop does not check signals at all, it should
> > just use msleep.
> >
> > Granted the process will end up in the D state and contribute
> > to the load average. But if this loop executes long enough
> > for that to be noticed then we've got bigger problems to worry
> > about.
>
> If Dave & Stephen agree, I'll send a patch changing napi_disable() too
> then.
I agree with the msleep() change.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists