Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:18:57 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why do soft interrupt coelescing? Message-ID: <20011009001857.R59854@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20011008231046.A10472@panzer.kdm.org>; from ken@kdm.org on Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 11:10:46PM -0600 References: <3BBF5E49.65AF9D8E@mindspring.com> <20011006144418.A6779@panzer.kdm.org> <3BC00ABC.20ECAAD8@mindspring.com> <20011008231046.A10472@panzer.kdm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Kenneth D. Merry <ken@kdm.org> [011009 00:11] wrote: > > As you say above, this is actually a good thing. I don't see how this ties > into the patch to introduce some sort of interrupt coalescing into the > ti(4) driver. IMO, you should be able to tweak the coalescing parameters > on the board to do what you want. No matter how hard you tweak the board, an interrupt may still trigger while you process a hardware interrupt, this causes an additional poll which can cause additional coalescing. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011009001857.R59854>