Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:29:43 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org>, net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes Message-ID: <433D8417.D4666378@freebsd.org> References: <20050930124000.GA45345@cell.sick.ru> <20050930160302.GJ45345@cell.sick.ru> <20050930181322.GB1768@garage.freebsd.pl> <20050930182325.GO45345@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > 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. If it does a FOREACH(interface) then it should stay as a kernel option. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?433D8417.D4666378>