From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Nov 1 21:37:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA00544 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:37:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from trojanhorse.ml.org (mdean.vip.best.com [206.86.94.101]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA00537 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:37:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jamil@trojanhorse.ml.org) Received: from localhost (jamil@localhost) by trojanhorse.ml.org (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA00793; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:36:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:36:30 -0800 (PST) From: "Jamil J. Weatherbee" To: Mike Smith cc: hackers@freebsd.org, dufault@hda.com Subject: Re: Strategy Routines In-Reply-To: <199711020252.NAA00521@word.smith.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Ok, so say I am doing outb(), one bang after the other. Since timo can sleep up to 1/100 of a second. What would be a good "packet size" (i.e. number of outb() to limit myself to in a loop. My initial estimates would indicate that I could break up the buffer in something like: (this is just for example I know the modulus is pretty damn innefficient) for (i=0; i This is a fault in the driver design. Drivers should not hog the > cpu, obviously. Try calling tsleep() out of the driver with a very > short timeout. > > mike > >