X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From:	Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: DPMI Interrupt latency ?
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:22:34 CST
Organization:	Rice University, Houston TX
Lines:	21
Message-ID:	<3c5766fa.sandmann@clio.rice.edu>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1020129153726 DOT 8440D-100000 AT is> <slrna5de5e DOT 5cd DOT kala AT ganga DOT sankya DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	clio.rice.edu
X-Trace:	joe.rice.edu 1012361146 25557 128.42.105.3 (30 Jan 2002 03:25:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT rice DOT edu
NNTP-Posting-Date:	30 Jan 2002 03:25:46 GMT
X-NewsEditor:	ED-1.5.9
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> That makes sense - and would explains why my handler didn't get called.
> My confusion was only regarding whether the DPMI server would accept 
> INT 8D blindly as a hardware interrupt or if it would actually read the
> ISR from the PIC  to determine that the interrupt was generated through
> hardware before deciding whether to forward it or not. The latter seems
> to be true at least with CWSDPMI. ( Wonder if PMODE/DJ checks this too -
> I suspect it may not, that would explain one major source of the faster
> response - Reading the ISR requires 2 I/O instructions !)

Sorry I don't have ttime to look at this completely - I'm out of town on
business trip.  It doesn't read the ISR.  It just hooks the real mode
interrupt table and directs it to a mode jump.  Yes, it proably must be
the real HW interrupt (which is revectored for the low PIC).  It will
work if you find right one.

- Raw text -