From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 12 13: 3:56 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (earth-nat-cw.backplane.com [208.161.114.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544C037B718 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:03:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@earth.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.2/8.9.3) id f2CL3YZ74166; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:03:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:03:34 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200103122103.f2CL3YZ74166@earth.backplane.com> To: Mark Murray Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ethernet entropy harvesting seriously pessimizes performance References: <200103121937.f2CJbmY72278@earth.backplane.com> <200103121944.f2CJiif91472@gratis.grondar.za> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :Matt, : :At it is very obvious to me that you have not even looked at the new :code, let alone run it, I suggest that you do both before further :engaging in this conversation. : :M :-- :Mark Murray :Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn I looked at it. I'm sorry, I don't see how your adjustments make the code any better from an algorithmic point of view. As far as I can tell, things can still run away and interrupts still have an unnecessarily large fixed overhead when they call the random_harvest_internal(). I don't understand what is so difficult about simply rate-limiting the code at the proper point -- at the very beginning of the call that the interrupt harvester makes, removing most of the fixed overhead for the case where a system is getting a large number of interrupts per second? Why are you going through loops to create complex, sensitive code paths when a simple solution can be plopped down and will work, SNAP, just like that? -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message