Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:09:57 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: swi_net Message-ID: <20011218140957.D89299@iguana.aciri.org> In-Reply-To: <20011218155746.K59831@elvis.mu.org> References: <20011218104750.M377@prism.flugsvamp.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0112181017000.36281-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20011218125816.N377@prism.flugsvamp.com> <20011218135407.B89299@iguana.aciri.org> <20011218155746.K59831@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 03:57:46PM -0600, Alfred Perlstein wrote: ... > > I have been against deferred processing for a long time, but recently > > have slightly changed my mind because i now see a reason in it (mentioned in > > the previous msg, re. expensive processing), as long as you can reserve > > some amount of CPU to the deferred processing, and you make sure that ... > It makes sense to switch to direct dispatch when the queue fills as > you'll leave the hardware interrupt blocked and then be able to > process your data. it's a slipperly slope. Once you reach that stage, you are running out of CPU and you'd really want to drop things as early as possible until you go back to a bearable load level. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011218140957.D89299>