Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:04:16 +0200 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: hyper threading. Message-ID: <170873865.20050327200416@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <8C700FCB91B8886-4B8-3C2BE@mblk-d50.sysops.aol.com> References: <c6ef380c050326061976f164b@mail.gmail.com> <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
em1897@aol.com writes: > Right. Thats what I said. You'll killl your networking. Beyond a certain network load, you have to increase the number of timer interrupts per second no matter how fast your processors are or how many of them you have, if you are polling your I/O interfaces instead of being driven from interrupts. I don't like the idea of routinely running 1000 timer interrupts per second, but I note that FreeBSD 6.x apparently is moving to this number (?). I'd prefer that it be readily configurable. There are other options but I'm not sure how well x86 hardware supports them. Having a very accurate, very high resolution elapsed-time counter on the processor(s) can help lower overhead by allowing the OS to get accurate time information without waiting for an interrupt and with execution of only a single instruction. Having programmable, very high resolution timers would help, too. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?170873865.20050327200416>