X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Date:	Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:15:51 -0200
From:	Jonatan Liljedahl <lijon AT kymatica DOT com>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Problems with timer interrupt chaining and SmartDrv
Message-Id:	<20041221121551.4b4ee761.lijon@kymatica.com>
In-Reply-To:	<41c73ac5$0$176$cc7c7865@news.luth.se>
References:	<001701c4e2f2$e397dcc0$e1b92951 AT josepmariaxp>
	<01c4e32a$Blat.v2.2.2$fb750ba0 AT zahav DOT net DOT il>
	<20041216081608 DOT GA17913 AT webhome DOT cz>
	<01c4e368$Blat.v2.2.2$592f6a00 AT zahav DOT net DOT il>
	<41c40fe4$0$175$cc7c7865 AT news DOT luth DOT se>
	<01c4e515$Blat.v2.2.2$ff8078a0 AT zahav DOT net DOT il>
	<41c73ac5$0$176$cc7c7865 AT news DOT luth DOT se>
Organization:	Kymatica
X-Mailer:	Sylpheed version 0.9.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 20 Dec 2004 20:49:09 GMT
Martin Str|mberg <ams AT speedy DOT ludd DOT ltu DOT se> wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT gnu DOT org> wrote:
> >> From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT speedy DOT ludd DOT ltu DOT se>
> >> Date: 18 Dec 2004 11:09:24 GMT
> >> 
> >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT gnu DOT org> wrote:
> >> > It sounds like you are assuming that DMA is faster than PIO. 
> >That was> > so once, long ago, mainly with floppy drives, but is no
> >longer true> > since ATA interfaces conquered the PC land.  Nowadays,
> >PIO is faster> > than DMA, so AFAIK DMA is no longer used in disk
> >I/O.> 
> >> For DOS maybe, not for a multitasking system.
> 
> > Do you mean DMA is used on multitasking systems?  Or do you mean PIO
> > is only faster on DOS, not on multitasking systems?
> 
> > If the latter, please explain.
> 
> The former. And since DOS isn't multitasking it doesn't gain anything
> from the possiblity of the CPU doing something else but waiting for
> IO.

That not's true. Even if there aren't other programs running at the same
time, the program that IS running and doing I/O could very likely want
to do something while waiting for I/O! I know for sure that I'd like my
ongoing project (http://kymatica.com/kyce) to be able to keep on doing
stuff right after fwrite() is called, instead of the program being
blocked until I/O finishes.

/Jonatan    -=( http://kymatica.com )=-

- Raw text -