Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 15:19:21 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: dufault@hda.com (Peter Dufault) Cc: jau@jau.csc.fi, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: POSIX.4 scheduler interface for FreeBSD-2.1 Message-ID: <199601282219.PAA01704@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199601281510.KAA13795@hda.com> from "Peter Dufault" at Jan 28, 96 10:10:42 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> (...) > > Thanks Jukka. > > On a related note, can anyone think of anything that would break > if all drivers used start queues that were priority queues based > on real time priority instead of FIFO? > > Unrelated I/O would finish out of order but I can't see why that > would matter. Windows 95 reenables interrupts immediately after queueing a descriptor for servicing. It seems that their code has much less effective latency for interleaved events because of this. This type of approach would lend itself to this type of driver capability. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601282219.PAA01704>