From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Mar 10 13:22:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA25514 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:22:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA25477 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:22:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id VAA27659; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 21:38:32 +0100 From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <199703102038.VAA27659@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: performance (was: 100 Mb/s cards) To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 21:38:32 +0100 (MET) Cc: dg@root.com, bag@sinbin.demos.su, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199703102014.HAA11658@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Mar 11, 97 07:14:28 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk About the following performance issue: > >> been able to get it to work. The Pro/100B is well supported; it's what I'm > >> using in wcarchive and I haven't had any problems. It consumes about half > >> the CPU time that the de driver does and has about the same level of the kernel is generally compiled with -O , I guess because of fear of broken compiler optimizations. Would it be safe to compile selected parts (e.g. network driver...) of relatively stable code (so that an adequate test period could give confidence on its performance) in the kernel with a more aggressive optimization so as to improve performance of critical parts of the system ? Luigi -----------------------------+-------------------------------------- Luigi Rizzo | Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione email: luigi@iet.unipi.it | Universita' di Pisa tel: +39-50-568533 | via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) fax: +39-50-568522 | http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ _____________________________|______________________________________