Subject: Re: device polling system
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Takahiro Igarashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/30/2003 23:19:17
thank you for your interest.
> Hayakawa Koichi <email@example.com> wrote
> From: Takahiro Igarashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: device polling system
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 00:54:23 +0900 (JST)
> Message-ID: <email@example.com>
> > I am now working to implement the device polling system on
> > NetBSD. The project page is at:
> > http://thir.org/thir/NetBSD/devicepolling.en.html
> > The patch is still based on FreeBSD's one. But I now start
> > to select the way of implementation of it and so on.
> > Fortunately my patch seems to work well.
> > Comments?
> Interesting! It is a good start point, I think.
> I have some questions and comments.
> * What NIC did you use for your benchmark?
I'm using fxp in client side and ex in server side. And
Which I implement the device polling is fxp.
> * How many clock interrupts per second (hz value)?
024, I use.
> * Did you measure TCP/IP performance?
What I use for benchmarking is now only spray, so the answer
I'm recognizing the short of test tool, so I'll select or
> I suppose, for the first step, making generic polling
> interrupt handler, without NIC driver changes, is better.
To see my patch tells NIC dirver changes are small, add
polling handler and some code to enable polling.
And I'm now rewriting the kern_poll.c, main routine polling
system. What my patch did in both netisr_poll and
netisr_pollmore is called by new polling system as polling
handler. What would you say this one?
> Do you consider sporadic server or some kind of similar
> handler on NetBSD?
Sorry for my English skill. I don't understand what you say
by this. Would you explain it to me?