On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:27:56PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> I keep wondering about the sagicity of running interrupts in
> threads... it still seems like an incredibly bad idea to me.
>
> I guess my major problem with this is that by running in
> threads, it's made it nearly impossibly to avoid receiver
> livelock situations, using any of the classical techniques
> (e.g. Mogul's work, etc.).
References to published works?
> It also has the unfortunate property of locking us into virtual
> wire mode, when in fact Microsoft demonstrated that wiring down
> interrupts to particular CPUs was good practice, in terms of
> assuring best performance. Specifically, running in virtual
Can you point us at any concrete information that shows this?
Specifically, without being Microsoft biased (as is most "data" published by
Microsoft)? -- i.e. preferably third-party performance testing that attributes
wiring down of interrupts to particular CPUs as _the_ performance advantage.
> wire mode means that all your CPUs get hit with the interrupt,
> whereas running with the interrupt bound to a particular CPU
> reduces the overall overhead. Even what we have today, with
Obviously.
> the big giant lock and redirecting interrupts to "the CPU in
> the kernel" is better than that...
>
> -- Terry
--
Bosko Milekic
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
