Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:56:43 -0400 From: Lucas Holt <luke@foolishgames.com> To: Jason Stone <freebsd-performance@dfmm.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: decreasing interrupt CPU load Message-ID: <0A85B89D-2369-11D9-BD7C-000A95EFF4CA@foolishgames.com> In-Reply-To: <20041020133406.V79820@walter> References: <20041020133406.V79820@walter>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 20, 2004, at 4:34 PM, Jason Stone wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > I read somewhere that there wasn't a specific reason for not allowing > device polling and smp to be used at the same time, and that it was > fairly > safe to remove the #ifdef SMP/#error block in sys/kern/kern_poll.c and > compile in both smp and device polling. > > I haven't done this in a production environment, but I've done it on my > smp desktop box, and it seems to work okay. > > > -Jason > If you look at http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/polling, the last Q & A question suggests why it is disabled for SMP. It seems that polling only runs on one thread whereas an smp box might handle concurrently interupts from different devices. Can the scheduler move the thread to another cpu or is it locked on a particular cpu? Lucas Holt Luke@FoolishGames.com ________________________________________________________ FoolishGames.com (Jewel Fan Site) JustJournal.com (Free blogging)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0A85B89D-2369-11D9-BD7C-000A95EFF4CA>