On 08/07/2013 22:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Eliezer Tamir
> <eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com> 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.
Thanks,
Eliezer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
