Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:55:10 -0500 From: em1897@aol.com To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: hyper threading. Message-ID: <8C701C5A7BE6FEE-4B8-3F7A1@mblk-d50.sysops.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <1802825135.20050328164920@wanadoo.fr> References: 6667 <20050328142522.40982.qmail@web90210.mail.scd.yahoo.com> <1802825135.20050328164920@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> 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"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8C701C5A7BE6FEE-4B8-3F7A1>