Re: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes
From: Luigi Rizzo (rizzo_at_icir.org)
Date: 09/30/05
- Previous message: Andre Oppermann: "Re: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes"
- In reply to: Andre Oppermann: "Re: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes"
- Next in thread: Gleb Smirnoff: "Re: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:33:33 -0700 To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:29:43PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
...
> > 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.
this wasn't the case when i first wrote it - the list of
interfaces actually using polling was stored into an array and
the count was in a variable, so the loop was something like
for (i=0; i < actively_polling_interfaces; i++)
foo[i]->poll()
so it's basically just an extra function call per tick if
no interfaces are doing polling.
cheers
luigi
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Andre Oppermann: "Re: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes"
- In reply to: Andre Oppermann: "Re: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes"
- Next in thread: Gleb Smirnoff: "Re: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
