On Tue, 2022-03-01 at 15:06 -0500, Olivier Langlois wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-03-02 at 02:31 +0800, Hao Xu wrote:
> >
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > if (list is singular) {
> >
> > do something;
> >
> > return;
> >
> > }
> >
> > while (!io_busy_loop_end() && io_napi_busy_loop())
> >
> > ;
> >
>
> is there a concern with the current code?
> What would be the benefit of your suggestion over current code?
>
> To me, it seems that if io_blocking_napi_busy_loop() is called, a
> reasonable expectation would be that some busy looping is done or
> else
> you could return the function without doing anything which would,
> IMHO,
> be misleading.
>
> By definition, napi_busy_loop() is not blocking and if you desire the
> device to be in busy poll mode, you need to do it once in a while or
> else, after a certain time, the device will return back to its
> interrupt mode.
>
> IOW, io_blocking_napi_busy_loop() follows the same logic used by
> napi_busy_loop() that does not call loop_end() before having perform
> 1
> loop iteration.
>
> > Btw, start_time seems not used in singular branch.
>
> I know. This is why it is conditionally initialized.
>
> Greetings,
>
Another argument for not touching the code the way that it is:
io_napi_busy_loop() has another function on top of iterating the
napi_list and calling napi_busy_loop() for each of them.
The function also check the list entries validity and frees them when
they time out. Not calling io_napi_busy_loop() you would bypass this
check and that could result in timed out entries to never be disposed.
