Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] net: implement support for low latency socketpolling

[Eric Dumazet]

On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 17:28 +0200, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> On 04/03/2013 16:52, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 10:43 +0200, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> >
> >> One could for example increment the generation id every time the RTNL is
> >> taken. or is this too much?
> >
> > RTNL is taken for a lot of operations, it would be better to have a
> > finer grained increment.
> 
> If is taken rarely enough it will still be worth it.
> 

Yes, but eventually it makes attempts to get rid of RTNL a nightmare.

When adding new network features, just use the right semantic from the
beginning.

> Otherwise it may be hard to know what operations need to invalidate the 
> napi reference. It can very well be HW dependent, and then you end up 
> adding a function for drivers to call to do the invalidation.
> 
> Or we can decide that we only care about catastrophic events and only 
> worry about a napi completely going away and not worry about 
> configuration changes.(Polling the wrong queue will not kill you, it's 
> just a waste of perfectly good CPU cycles.)

As long as the incoming packets are able to update the information, who
cares if one packet missed the poll ?
 


--
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/