Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:57:10 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: archie@FreeBSD.org, smp@FreeBSD.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: looking for locking advice.. Message-ID: <20001221105710.U19572@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.001221104756.jhb@FreeBSD.org>; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 10:47:56AM -0800 References: <20001221104100.T19572@fw.wintelcom.net> <XFMail.001221104756.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> [001221 10:47] wrote: > > On 21-Dec-00 Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > I wouldn't worry all too much about the distiction between interrupt > > execution state versus non-interrupt. Sure device nodes want to complete > > as soon as possible, however eventually we'll have _multiple_ software > > interrupt threads running on each processor so latency is reduced. > > > ps ax | grep 'swi[0-9]' | wc -l > 7 > > We already have multiple software interrupt threads that can run concurrently. > :) But not in the same class though, right? You can't more than one network software inetrrupt running atm, no? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001221105710.U19572>