2009/3/27 Luigi Rizzo <ri...@iet.unipi.it>: > The load of polling is pretty low (within 1% or so) even with > polling. The advantage of having interrupts is faster response > to incoming traffic, not CPU load.
oh, I was under the impression that polling spun in a tight loop, thus using 100% of the processor. After a quick test I see this is not the case. I assume it will get to 100% CPU load if I saturate my network. > > There is nothing difficult in having both active, except figuring > out a good logic for when to disable polling on an interface > that has been quiet for a while. Looking at Linux's logic, it appears to poll until there are no more packets, and thus re-enables interrupts. > > I don't know what is the status of polling these days -- when i > wrote it, the architecture was designed for UP kernels, and I > don't know if/how it has been revised to deal efficiently with > the SMP kernels we have now (in other words: one or multiple > polling loops, interaction with interrupt threads, etc.) So, do you think the interrupt+polling has a place in FreeBSD? Now that I know that Polling doesn't consume 100% of the processor, it might be best to "keep it simple stupid". > > cheers > luigi > Thanks for answer my questions, and thanks for writing polling support in the beginning! Andrew _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
