From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 27 18:04:18 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEE0516A4CE for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:04:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr (smtp11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B98043D49 for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:04:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1108.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 794101C000AE for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:04:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf1108.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4B9461C000AD for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:04:17 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20050327180417309.4B9461C000AD@mwinf1108.wanadoo.fr Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:04:16 +0200 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <170873865.20050327200416@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <8C700FCB91B8886-4B8-3C2BE@mblk-d50.sysops.aol.com> References: <1641928994.20050326192811@wanadoo.fr> <8C700529A2DFD74-A44-3A157@mblk-d34.sysops.aol.com> <439876144.20050326220638@wanadoo.fr> <8C7006AE7E80573-FAC-3B652@mblk-r28.sysops.aol.com> <49251524.20050326234521@wanadoo.fr> <8C7007D5D4D30D2-A38-3B313@mblk-r33.sysops.aol.com> <14510304120.20050327123336@wanadoo.fr> <8C700FCB91B8886-4B8-3C2BE@mblk-d50.sysops.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: hyper threading. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:04:19 -0000 em1897@aol.com writes: > Right. Thats what I said. You'll killl your networking. Beyond a certain network load, you have to increase the number of timer interrupts per second no matter how fast your processors are or how many of them you have, if you are polling your I/O interfaces instead of being driven from interrupts. I don't like the idea of routinely running 1000 timer interrupts per second, but I note that FreeBSD 6.x apparently is moving to this number (?). I'd prefer that it be readily configurable. There are other options but I'm not sure how well x86 hardware supports them. Having a very accurate, very high resolution elapsed-time counter on the processor(s) can help lower overhead by allowing the OS to get accurate time information without waiting for an interrupt and with execution of only a single instruction. Having programmable, very high resolution timers would help, too. -- Anthony