Re: [PATCH v9 net-next 2/7] net: add low latency socket poll

[Eric Dumazet]

On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 18:30 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 18:21, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 13:34 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is probably too big to be inlined, and nonblock should be a bool
> 
> 
> > It would also make sense to give end_time as a parameter, so that the
> > polling() code could really give  a end_time for the whole duration of
> > poll().
> >
> > (You then should test can_poll_ll(end_time) _before_ call to
> > ndo_ll_poll())
> 
> how would you handle a nonblocking operation in that case?
> I guess if we have a socket option, then we don't need to handle none 
> blocking any diffrent, since the user specified exactly how much time to 
> waste polling. right?

If the thread already spent 50us in the poll() system call, it for sure
should not call any ndo_ll_poll(). This makes no more sense at this
point.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/