Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 22:36:20 -0700 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why do soft interrupt coelescing? Message-ID: <200110090536.f995aKU08231@mass.dis.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:18:57 CDT." <20011009001857.R59854@elvis.mu.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.
I don't think I understand what sort of crack you are smoking.
If an interrupt-worthy condition is asserted on the board, you aren't
going to leave your typical interrupt handler anyway; this sort of
coalescing already happens without any "help".
--
... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his
rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want
to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force
people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt]
V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E
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?200110090536.f995aKU08231>