Subject: Re: device polling system
To: mouss <email@example.com>
From: Takahiro Igarashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/04/2003 09:08:16
sorry for replaying late.
> mouss <email@example.com> wrote
> At 01:55 29/05/2003 +0900, Takahiro Igarashi wrote:
> >what do you means "on the fly" for? If it is that kernel
> >choices ether interrupt-driven or polling on some time, I
> >dont know the OSes which do so. If it requires reasonably,
> >I must implement it.
> >If it is that simply to switch between them, this code is
> >partly implemented. I'll change switch from all or nothing
> >to nic base choice.
> One possibility would be to
> 1- switch from interrupt to polling if load is higher than some threshold T1
> load may be "speed" of interrupts (or "acceleration" so as to be somewhat
> 2- switch back to interrupt if load is below some threshold T2
> (with T2 <= T1, possibly different).
> This requires keeping traffic infos. more elaborate algos might be better
> (but would add complexity?)
I just thought this idea, but I cannot have enough belief in
reasonability. I wonder some daemon should watch this.
but just after I read what papers you pick, I say thank to
you, I'll try implementing this.
# I have little time to implement in work days, it'll be later X<