On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 18:46 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 18:39, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 18:30 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> >> On 05/06/2013 18:21, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> >>> 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.
>
> what about a non-blocking read from a socket?
> Right now we assume this means poll only once since the application will
> repeat as needed.
>
> maybe add a "once" parameter that will cause sk_poll_ll() to ignore end
> time and only try once?
extern bool __sk_poll_ll(struct sock *sk, cycles_t end);
static inline bool sk_poll_ll(struct sock *sk, bool nonblock)
{
return __sk_poll_ll(sk, nonblock, ll_end_time());
}
In the poll() code, we should call ll_end_time() once, even if we poll
1000 fds.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
