[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1371179569.3252.120.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:12:49 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>
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>,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, 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>,
Avner Ben Hanoch <avnerb@...lanox.com>,
Or Kehati <ork@...lanox.com>, sockperf-dev@...glegroups.com,
Eliezer Tamir <eliezer@...ir.org.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 2/4] net: convert low latency sockets to
sched_clock()
On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 04:57 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> Use sched_clock() instead of get_cycles().
> We can use sched_clock() because we don't care much about accuracy.
> Remove the dependency on X86_TSC
>
> Signed-off-by: Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>
> -static inline bool can_poll_ll(cycles_t end_time)
> +static inline bool can_poll_ll(u64 end_time)
> {
> - return !time_after((unsigned long)get_cycles(),
> + return !time_after((unsigned long)sched_clock(),
> (unsigned long)end_time);
> }
I do not really understand why you bother to have 64bit wide values,
and then use these "unsigned long" casts here.
On 32bit arches, this will really limit to 2^31 ns range.
You should instead either :
- use time_after_64() or
- explicitly limit sysctl_net_ll_poll range
--
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