[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V4] Switch from select() to poll() in xenconsoled's IO loop
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 15:06 +0000, Mats Petersson wrote: > On 07/01/13 15:01, Wei Liu wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 14:41 +0000, Mats Petersson wrote: > > > >>> return; > >>> @@ -982,11 +1024,7 @@ void handle_io(void) > >>> /* Re-calculate any event counter allowances & unblock > >>> domains with new allowance */ > >>> for (d = dom_head; d; d = d->next) { > >>> - /* Add 5ms of fuzz since select() often returns > >>> - a couple of ms sooner than requested. Without > >>> - the fuzz we typically do an extra spin in > >>> select() > >>> - with a 1/2 ms timeout every other iteration */ > >>> - if ((now+5) > d->next_period) { > >>> + if (now > d->next_period) { > >> Is poll more accurate than select? I would have thought that they were > >> based on the same timing, and thus equally "fuzzy"? > > Is there any actual proof that the fuzz is needed? Specs of both > > select() and poll() don't seem to mention this behaviour at all. > That's a good question. I don't know. The tricky part with this sort of > thing is that it may well depend on configurations, hardware > differences, etc, so you may find that it works just fine on your > test-box, but some big customer with Another-brand Co's servers don't > work, because there is some subtle difference in hardware. Or it stops > working if you have more than X number of CPU's. If you are convinced > it's fine as it is, then by all means. I'm just thinking that it > probably wasn't put there "by accident". There's certainly an argument for removing it in a separate changeset though in case it does cause issues. Ian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |