cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_poll.c
scottl at samsco.org
Tue Sep 6 10:16:56 PDT 2005
Nate Lawson wrote:
> Robert Watson wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:18:28AM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>>>> The idlepoll thread is single.
>>> ok this is very good. Re. netisr vs idlepoll, perhaps a way could be
>>> to bump the idlepoll priority very high upon a net soft interrupt,
>>> and drop it down to its normal value once done with the netisr cycle.
>>> so we don't have to arbitrate among the two.
>> Also, if we gradually move to a polling model that handles polling for
>> non-network devices, it would result in a rather mixed model. One of
>> the challenges of moving to a mixed polling model (one that supports
>> non-network devices) is that network devices have a fairly well
>> understood currency for work: processing of packets. Other devices
>> may have less well understood, or at least not easily comparable,
> For the case of storage, you actually have a better model since all
> transactions are initiated from the host (as opposed to packet
> arrivals). This gives an easy metric for a dynamic polling threshold --
> if you have a deep queue of outstanding requests and one completes, you
> should poll a little more than normal.
Except for target mode.
More information about the cvs-src