Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:36:19 +0300 From: "Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri" <almarrie@gmail.com> To: "Andrew Thompson" <thompsa@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why not remove polling(4) from 7.0? Message-ID: <499c70c0706070236x28d781e6yb8ba4c8ccd251372@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070607093027.GA4784@heff.fud.org.nz> References: <499c70c0706070210v39f7016hbd80e9780902e992@mail.gmail.com> <20070607093027.GA4784@heff.fud.org.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/7/07, Andrew Thompson <thompsa@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:10:31PM +0300, Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri wrote: > > Hello Guys, > > > > Almost all cases polling(4) adds additional latency. > > There are some cases that polling(4) helps a little but most cases it > > wouldn't. > > > > So why not remove it or switch to adaptive polling as em(4) instead of > > resorting to polling? > > Are you just talking about em(4) or removing polling for all drivers? It > is helpful in some cases, for example I run FreeBSD on a Nortel > contivity 1010 box where interrupts do not work on the fxp interface and > yet its quite usable with polling mode. > > Its not enabled by default so its up to the user if they want to make > use of it. > > > cheers, > Andrew I mean can't we use better handeling for nics which is better than current polling(4)? -- Regards, -Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri Arab Portal http://www.WeArab.Net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?499c70c0706070236x28d781e6yb8ba4c8ccd251372>