From owner-freebsd-current Sat Feb 9 16:27:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9B837B405; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 16:27:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA09706; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 11:27:26 +1100 Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 11:30:10 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: To: Julian Elischer Cc: , FreeBSD current users Subject: Re: "fast" interrupt handler threads. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020210112017.S5130-100000@gamplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > > Yes, anything that reaches doreti checks for ASTs and runs userret() if > > necessary and possible (only for returns to user mode). > > > > Hmm, this check seems to be inadequate for fast interrupts. There is > > no check for rescheduling if the return is to kernel mode. > > Do you plan on fixing anything you find wrong here? Sure. I think this is only a minor problem. Most processes don't stay in the kernel for long, and things scheduled in fast interrupt handlers aren't very time-critical (but softclock should run before the next hardclock!). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message