From owner-freebsd-net  Mon Jul  2 15:23: 2 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 558)
	id 29F3337B401; Mon,  2 Jul 2001 15:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: luigi@info.iet.unipi.it
Subject: Re: fastforwarding?
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <200107022109.XAA38398@info.iet.unipi.it>
Message-Id: <20010702222259.29F3337B401@hub.freebsd.org>
Date: Mon,  2 Jul 2001 15:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: hsu@FreeBSD.ORG (Jeffrey Hsu)
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-net.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-net>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

  > one of them is the (relatively high) interrupt overhead
  > as reported by many. There is a good description of the problem
  > in the Click's paper at http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/click/ and
  > in the Mogul's paper referenced in there.

  > The advantage of this approach is that you don't have to implement
  > a real polling system (which can become expensive when the number
  > of cards in a box becomes large), and that modifications are
  > relatively small and, especially, device-independent.  Hopefully
  > we will be able to post them soon, after a bit more experiments.

Interesting.  We've been working on the Lazy Receiver Processing
approach (http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/Systems/LRP) to this problem
in combination with polling after processing as suggested by Mogul's
paper.  As I understand it, your approach has the benefit of simplicity
over the LRP approach.

							Jeffrey

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message