From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu May 16 19:15:27 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA28967
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 19:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hq.icb.chel.su (icb-rich-gw.icb.chel.su [193.125.10.34])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA28951;
          Thu, 16 May 1996 19:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (babkin@localhost) by hq.icb.chel.su (8.7.5/8.6.5) id IAA04026; Fri, 17 May 1996 08:14:17 +0600 (GMT+0600)
From: "Serge A. Babkin" <babkin@hq.icb.chel.su>
Message-Id: <199605170214.IAA04026@hq.icb.chel.su>
Subject: Re: EDO & Memory latency
To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert)
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:14:17 +0600 (ESD)
Cc: dyson@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199605161715.KAA17388@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at May 16, 96 10:15:24 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
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-).

Nope :-) These 400 were (500-80) rounded to 100.

-SB