Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 08:35:17 -0600 From: "Eric L. Hernes" <erich@lodgenet.com> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: i386 rep (blah) and interrupts... Message-ID: <199604031435.IAA21241@jake.lodgenet.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Apr 1996 17:58:57 %2B0930." <199604030828.RAA19778@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Smith writes: > > insw(sc->sc_port,sc->sc_buf,sc->sc_pending); > >.... which basically translates to the i386 'rep insw' construct. > >It's not inconcievable that sc->sc_pending could run to several tens of K, >and what I don't know is whether this construct is interruptible or not. > >If it isn't, obviously I'll want to slice it up into smaller slabs. If it >is, then bigger is faster, and speed is fairly important. > >Anyone can comment? Intel's `Pentium Processor Famil Developer's Manual' shows pending interrupts processed inside the loop for the rep family of instructions. So I'd have to say yes it is interruptible, but you could make the system slow to a crawl by being pigish on the block size, you probably know that though... > >-- >]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ >]] Genesis Software genesis@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ >]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ >]] realtime instrument control (ph/fax) +61-8-267-3039 [[ >]] Collector of old Unix hardware. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[ > eric. -- erich@lodgenet.com erich@rrnet.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604031435.IAA21241>