From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 28 15:45:22 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 0529E16A4CE for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:45:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from imo-m22.mx.aol.com (imo-m22.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BC043D48 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:45:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from EM1897@aol.com) Received: from EM1897@aol.com by imo-m22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r5.33.) id n.196.3bb7e9e4 (15874) for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:45:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from mblk-d50 (mblk-d50.mblk.aol.com [205.188.212.234]) by air-id07.mx.aol.com (v104.18) with ESMTP id MAILINID71-3e024248268d8a; Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:45:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:45:17 -0500 Message-Id: <8C701C4461F7B6C-4B8-3F640@mblk-d50.sysops.aol.com> From: em1897@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> <170873865.20050327200416@wanadoo.fr> <8C7015DFC50E71C-B30-24D33@mblk-d12.sysops.aol.com> <1732642559.20050328060300@wanadoo.fr> Received: from 24.47.116.25 by mblk-d50.sysops.aol.com (205.188.212.234) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:45:16 -0500 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User In-Reply-To: <1732642559.20050328060300@wanadoo.fr> X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 1.0.0.11984 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-AOL-IP: 205.188.212.234 Subject: Re: hyper threading. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:45:22 -0000 I guess that depends on how you define "performance". The MAX_INTS setting in the em driver essentially does what polling does (in reducing interrupts) without the overhead. So there is really no way that polling could be better. With polling you have a lot of unnecessary overhead. Setting MAX_INTS properly has zero overhead for the O/S -----Original Message----- From: Anthony Atkielski To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:03:00 +0200 Subject: Re: hyper threading. em1897@aol.com writes: > Polling is simply unecessary in most cases. You could get > better performance using an em driver and setting max > ints to whatever is optimal for your system. Polling adds > latency and over head for no good reason. Polling often provides better performance, at the expense of higher overhead. -- Anthony _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"