From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 28 15:55:19 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 5565916A4CE for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:55:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from imo-m17.mx.aol.com (imo-m17.mx.aol.com [64.12.138.207]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6CE43D41 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:55:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from EM1897@aol.com) Received: from EM1897@aol.com by imo-m17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r5.33.) id n.c8.5ba5c7f3 (15888) for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:55:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mblk-d50 (mblk-d50.mblk.aol.com [205.188.212.234]) by air-id08.mx.aol.com (v104.18) with ESMTP id MAILINID83-3e10424828de1a; Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:55:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:55:10 -0500 Message-Id: <8C701C5A7BE6FEE-4B8-3F7A1@mblk-d50.sysops.aol.com> From: em1897@aol.com References: 6667 <20050328142522.40982.qmail@web90210.mail.scd.yahoo.com> <1802825135.20050328164920@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 10:55:10 -0500 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User In-Reply-To: <1802825135.20050328164920@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 15:55:19 -0000 Things have changed a bit since then, so I doubt that "proof" has any relevance. All polling does , in the context of device polling, is make networking low-priority. You are adding latency to save CPU cycles. You could argue that higher latency is lower performance. Interrupt hold offs are a much better way to reduce interrupts without poisoning your system with extra overhead. -----Original Message----- From: Anthony Atkielski To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:49:20 +0200 Subject: Re: hyper threading. Boris Spirialitious writes: > If you understood what I said, then you wouldn't > say what you said, because its just plain wrong. I've written code that proves it right. Someone once told me that a 80286 couldn't handle ordinary terminal communications at speeds of 38400 bps. I proved that it could, but the comm program I wrote to do so used polling rather than interrupts to accomplish it. It was impossible to handle such high speeds with interrupt-driven I/O. -- 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"