[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240207110413.0cfedc37@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:04:13 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
chuck.lever@...cle.com, jlayton@...nel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
brauner@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net,
alexander.duyck@...il.com, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com,
willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, weiwan@...gle.com,
David.Laight@...LAB.COM, arnd@...db.de, sdf@...gle.com,
amritha.nambiar@...el.com, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan
Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org (open list:FILESYSTEMS
(VFS and infrastructure))
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/4] eventpoll: support busy poll per epoll
instance
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 21:04:46 +0000 Joe Damato wrote:
> Allow busy polling on a per-epoll context basis. The per-epoll context
> usec timeout value is preferred, but the pre-existing system wide sysctl
> value is still supported if it specified.
Why do we need u64 for usecs? I think u16 would do, and u32 would give
a very solid "engineering margin". If it was discussed in previous
versions I think it's worth explaining in the commit message.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists