From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu May 16 10:18:53 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA18036
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 10:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA18031;
          Thu, 16 May 1996 10:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA17388; Thu, 16 May 1996 10:15:24 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199605161715.KAA17388@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: EDO & Memory latency
To: babkin@hq.icb.chel.su (Serge A. Babkin)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 10:15:24 -0700 (MST)
Cc: dyson@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199605160907.PAA10321@hq.icb.chel.su> from "Serge A. Babkin" at May 16, 96 03:07:44 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> The processor's internal conveyer size is at most 5 (?) 
> steps, for 13ns cycle this give 65ns for the maximal processor overhead. 
> The memory refresh can add about 15% of overhead, 60ns*0.15=9ns. In sum we 
> get 80+40+65+9=~=295ns. But the remaining 200ns are a real mystery for me.

Yeah, that's my ~280 number.  (ugh.  I just relaized I labelled the
units in my last post as uS).  400 - 295 = 105, so there's about half
of your mystery for you.  8-).


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.