[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201123160412.1bfb5161@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:04:12 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Björn Töpel
<bjorn.topel@...el.com>, magnus.karlsson@...el.com, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com,
sridhar.samudrala@...el.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
qi.z.zhang@...el.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
jonathan.lemon@...il.com, maximmi@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 01/10] net: introduce preferred busy-polling
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 09:30:15 +0100 Björn Töpel wrote:
> + /* The NAPI context has more processing work, but busy-polling
> + * is preferred. Exit early.
> + */
> + if (napi_prefer_busy_poll(n)) {
> + if (napi_complete_done(n, work)) {
> + /* If timeout is not set, we need to make sure
> + * that the NAPI is re-scheduled.
> + */
> + napi_schedule(n);
> + }
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
Do we really need to go through napi_complete_done() here?
Isn't it sufficient to check:
if (napi_prefer_busy_poll(n) &&
hrtimer_active(&n->timer)) // not 100% sure this is the
// right helper for the check
If timer is scheduled it will fire and worst case sirq will kick back
in after timeout. napi_complete_done() should had been called by the
driver already to schedule the timer. If the driver doesn't call
napi_complete_done() we should not allow it to use busy_poll() anyway.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists