At 12:39 AM -0700 8/7/01, Mike Smith wrote:
> > 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
>> 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
>> the big giant lock and redirecting interrupts to "the CPU in
>> the kernel" is better than that...
>
>Terry, this is *total* garbage.
>
>Just so you know, ok?
There are people on this list besides Terry. Terry has taken
the time to refer to a few URL's, and remind us of a benchmark
that I (for one) do remember, and I do remember Windows doing
quite well on it. Maybe that benchmark was bogus for some
reason, but I seem to remember several freebsd developers taking
it seriously at the time.
So, could you at least fill in what part of the above is total
garbage? Throw in a few insults to Terry if it makes you feel
better for some reason, but raise the level of information
content a little for the rest of us? You quoted several
distinct comments of Terry's -- were all of them garbage?
It might very well be that all of Terry's comments were in fact
garbage, but from the sidelines I'd appreciate a little more
in the way of technical details.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
