Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 10:09:28 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>, Orit Moskovich <oritm@mellanox.com> Subject: Re: preemptive kernel Message-ID: <51A306A8.1010201@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130527063432.GY3047@kib.kiev.ua> References: <981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0D5590@MTLDAG01.mtl.com> <20130526154752.GT3047@kib.kiev.ua> <981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0D56E0@MTLDAG01.mtl.com> <20130527063432.GY3047@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 27/05/2013 09:34 Konstantin Belousov said the following: > Having both filter and ithread for the same interrupt is apparently > possible but weird. I do not see anything which would prevent interrupt > filter from being executed while the ithread is running. But again, this > is very unusual setup. I wouldn't call it weird, but, yes, it is rare. It's a pretty normal configuration when the filter acts as a filter and the handler acts as a handler (in ithread). In other words, it would be a replacement for a configuration where a filter is used and the filter offloads actual work to non-interrupt context via a e.g. taskqueue. But, hmm, this functionality is probably locked under INTR_FILTER option. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51A306A8.1010201>