[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240207191407.GA1313@fastly.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:14:08 -0800
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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>,
"open list:FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure)" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/4] eventpoll: support busy poll per epoll
instance
On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:04:13AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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.
In patch 4/4 the value is limited to U32_MAX, but if you prefer I use a u32
here instead, I can make that change.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists