From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Jun 21 10:38:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from hotmail.com (f63.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.63]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FE637B409 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:38:27 -0700 Received: from 149.99.115.172 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:38:27 GMT X-Originating-IP: [149.99.115.172] From: "Gary Thorpe" To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: multiple threads for interrupts Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:38:27 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2002 17:38:27.0558 (UTC) FILETIME=[737C1060:01C2194A] Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >From: Terry Lambert >To: Bosko Milekic >CC: Gary Thorpe , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Re: multiple threads for interrupts >Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:47:24 -0700 > >Bosko Milekic wrote: > > I think > > I've found a "Strange Loop" in your Email: > > > > - Believe me because I'm telling you this is better. > > - Don't believe people who tell you to believe them because they say >that > > it is better. > > > > If I accept the first point, I cannot accept the second without > > re-defining the meaning of "belief," at the very least. Similarly, if I > > accept the second point, I cannot accept the first without, again, > > somehow re-defining the meaning of "belief," at least. > >Actually, I don't have a loop. What I'm saying is: > >- People are saying A is better >- Other people are implementing A on faith alone >- My personal belief is that B is better >- Before anything becomes a part of FreeBSD, whether it be > A or B, I'd like to see some benchmarks proving it's > better. > >If there's a loop, maybe it's: > > "I'm telling you to believe that you should not believe > things without benchmarks" > >Of course, I have no benchmarks to prove that benchmarks are really >necessary or useful... 8-). > >I do, though, have lots of papers on receiver livelock that I've >posted the references to before. The problem there is that most >people don't read papers. > >-- Terry Here is a link to the abstract and postscript of the papper I had originally read: http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/parallel/pubs_abs.html#Curran_Stumm_CS It does not go into interrupt servicing routines (because they use a simulator) but the results would be applicable to general thread scheduling. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message