Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:13:15 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> To: danial_thom@yahoo.com, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: polling decreases throughput ~50% Message-ID: <9850A0F3-F3AF-4E74-AC44-42CF835CEB49@u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20050821153843.89861.qmail@web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050821153843.89861.qmail@web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 21, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
>
>
> --- Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu>
> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9850A0F3-F3AF-4E74-AC44-42CF835CEB49>