Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 01:32:25 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: hselasky@c2i.net Cc: perforce@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 98153 for review Message-ID: <20060602.013225.-924278806.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <200606020856.11054.hselasky@c2i.net> References: <200605311657.44921.jhb@freebsd.org> <b1fa29170606011726r78303d84y3d0116cff2174009@mail.gmail.com> <200606020856.11054.hselasky@c2i.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <200606020856.11054.hselasky@c2i.net>
Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> writes:
: On Friday 02 June 2006 02:26, Kip Macy wrote:
: > > I'd rather avoid this for now as it will have to be backed out for
: > > interrupt filters.
: >
: > I don't know anything about interrupt filters, so please let me know
: > what you have in mind. The whole of interrupt handling is far too
: > heavyweight at the moment.
: >
:
: As long as your code is not Giant locked, the standard interrupt handlers
: should not be that slow?
They are very slow compared to a FAST interrupt handler, since there's
a full context switch :-(
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060602.013225.-924278806.imp>