Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:08:44 -0500 From: Chris Csanady <ccsanady@friley01.res.iastate.edu> To: dg@root.com Cc: sthaug@nethelp.no, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Network concurrency problems!? Message-ID: <199706192308.SAA13293@friley01.res.iastate.edu> In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 19 Jun 1997 04:33:46 -0700. <199706191133.EAA03461@implode.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>I can't remember seeing a direct statement that the Pro 100/B driver is >>simpler due to the design of the Pro 100/B. Can anybody help me here? > > I might have said that...I don't recall. In any case, it's part of the >reason; the other part is that I simply was very careful about coding and >spent a great deal of time optimizing the critical paths. There shouldn't >be much difference in total throughput, but the Pro/100B under FreeBSD >consumes much less CPU time compared to the DEC chip cards. My vauge >recollection is that the interrupt time was roughly half. It's entirely >possible that Matt has improved the performance of his driver since I >did the tests, however. For what its worth, we are seeing virtually no difference in performance between the dec and intel cards with Matt's latest driver. However, the intel card does seem to be a lot more efficent. BTW, does the intel card use DBDMA? From the driver, it looks like something similar. How about the dec? Also, this is sortof an aside, but I am writing a new driver, and was wondering about using mem mapped vs io mapped registers. How much of a difference in performance is there? Or should I just do a lot of outl()'s? (like in linux.. but its really ugly imho..) The memory/PCI busses are already a significant bottleneck, so I dont think I can afford to sacrifice too much.. Chris Csanady > >-DG > >David Greenman >Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706192308.SAA13293>