Re: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes

From: Andre Oppermann (andre_at_freebsd.org)
Date: 09/30/05

  • Next message: Luigi Rizzo: "Re: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes" 
    Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:29:43 +0200
To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>

    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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Luigi Rizzo: "Re: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes"