From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 22 01:12:46 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7836C16A41F for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:12:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from mxout5.cac.washington.edu (mxout5.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.135]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB2F43D55 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:12:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.33.9]) by mxout5.cac.washington.edu (8.13.4+UW05.04/8.13.4+UW05.05) with ESMTP id j7M1Ci4R011335 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:12:45 -0700 X-Auth-Received: from [140.142.179.84] (cs333-83.spmodem.washington.edu [140.142.179.84]) (authenticated authid=youshi10) by smtp.washington.edu (8.13.4+UW05.04/8.13.4+UW05.07) with ESMTP id j7M1CdjD018817 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:12:43 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) In-Reply-To: <20050821153843.89861.qmail@web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050821153843.89861.qmail@web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <9850A0F3-F3AF-4E74-AC44-42CF835CEB49@u.washington.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Garrett Cooper Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:13:15 -0700 To: danial_thom@yahoo.com, FreeBSD Questions X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) Cc: Subject: Re: polling decreases throughput ~50% X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:12:46 -0000 On Aug 21, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Danial Thom wrote: > > > --- Garrett Cooper > wrote: > > The problem with a "discussion" is that IQ isn't > cumulative. So if no one in the discussion has a > clue, then the conclusions don't mean much. If > you argue the merits of polling based on wrong > information (like the assumption that you'll get > a hardware interrupt for each event), then you've > just wasted a lot of time and learned nothing. > > You seem to have missed the point that hardware > has hold-offs that negate ANY need for polling. > Polling is a non-solution to a non-problem in the > modern world. > > Danial Sorry. Obviously not everyone is as experienced and knowledgeable as you are. I didn't say that it was the best solution; I just said it was discussed and while I may not have mentioned it previously, my professor highly discouraged the use of polling but said it was a viable way to solve _some_ problems. And of course, there are always more ways than established in all cases to solve a problem; one must think outside the box of course. And that is a design problem worthy of any engineer. -Garrett