From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Dec 18 14:10: 9 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from iguana.aciri.org (iguana.aciri.org [192.150.187.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE6F437B416 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:10:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by iguana.aciri.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) id fBIM9vx89571; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:09:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:09:57 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Jonathan Lemon , Julian Elischer , Bruce Evans , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: swi_net Message-ID: <20011218140957.D89299@iguana.aciri.org> References: <20011218104750.M377@prism.flugsvamp.com> <20011218125816.N377@prism.flugsvamp.com> <20011218135407.B89299@iguana.aciri.org> <20011218155746.K59831@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011218155746.K59831@elvis.mu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i 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 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