Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752956Ab3GHT7p (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:59:45 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.220.53]:39454 "EHLO mail-pa0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752477Ab3GHT7m (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:59:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:59:38 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Eliezer Tamir Cc: Linus Torvalds , David Miller , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Network Development , Andrew Morton , David Woodhouse , Eliezer Tamir Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: rename low latency sockets functions to busy poll Message-ID: <20130708125938.11ea37b4@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> In-Reply-To: <51DB16FC.7060003@linux.intel.com> References: <20130708132034.17639.4396.stgit@ladj378.jer.intel.com> <51DAF373.4040606@linux.intel.com> <51DB16FC.7060003@linux.intel.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2067 Lines: 55 On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 22:46:04 +0300 Eliezer Tamir wrote: > On 08/07/2013 22:37, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Eliezer Tamir > > wrote: > >> > >> I think there is no way for the compiler to know the value of > >> can_busy_loop at compile time. It depends on the replies we get > >> from polling the sockets. ll_flag was there to make sure the compiler > >> will know when things are defined out. > > > > No, my point was that we want to handle the easily seen register test > > first, and not even have to load current(). > > > > The compiler may end up scheduling the code to load current anyway, > > but the way you wrote it it's pretty much guaranteed that it will do > > it. > > I see. OK. > > > In fact, I'd argue for initializing start_time to zero, and have the > > "have we timed out" logic load it only if necessary, rather than > > initializing it based on whether POLL_BUSY_WAIT was set or not. > > Because one common case - even with POLL_BUSY_WAIT - is that we go > > through the loop exactly once, and the data exists on the very first > > try. And that is in fact the case we want to optimize and not do any > > extra work for at all. > > > > So I would actually argue that the whole timeout code might as well be > > something like > > > > unsigned long start_time = 0; > > ... > > if (want_busy_poll && !need_resched()) { > > unsigned long now = busy_poll_sched_clock(); > > if (!start_time) { > > start_time = now + sysctl.busypoll; > > continue; > > } > > if (time_before(start_time, now)) > > continue; > > } > > > > OK. Since this is special case in the hot path, it looks like a good case for static branch logic. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/