Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:23:25 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes Message-ID: <20050930182325.GO45345@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <20050930181322.GB1768@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <20050930124000.GA45345@cell.sick.ru> <20050930160302.GJ45345@cell.sick.ru> <20050930181322.GB1768@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:13:22PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: P> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:03:02PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: P> +> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 04:40:00PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: P> +> T> [please, follow-up on net@ only] P> +> T> P> +> T> Colleagues, P> +> T> P> +> T> here are some patches for review. P> +> P> +> I have some changes to patch after last compile, and haven't tested them P> +> befire sending patch. Here is an updated one. P> P> BTW. Not compiling in DEVICE_POLLING has any advantages except few bytes P> smaller kernel? P> I wonder if we could drop yet another kernel option and just set P> kern.poll.enable to 0 by default. P> If adding DEVICE_POLLING to the kernel doesn't cost additional locking, etc. P> in network data flow paths (which could lead to performance impact in some P> specific environments) can we just compile the code in always? It adds a stub function call every tick. The function returns almost immediately if no interfaces do polling. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050930182325.GO45345>