From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Sep 12 7:17:22 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (flutter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F2237B424 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e8CEHBN78539; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:17:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Julian Elischer Cc: Alfred Perlstein , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: what to do with softinterrupts? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:14:02 PDT." <39BE3A2A.167EB0E7@elischer.org> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:17:11 +0200 Message-ID: <78537.968768231@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <39BE3A2A.167EB0E7@elischer.org>, Julian Elischer writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> I think something like the lazy-switch we (intend to) do for >> hw-interrupts sounds promising: foo_input() runs as far as it can >> without blocking, when it needs to block, it does so in a another >> thread and continues input processing for other packets. > >this is for soft interrupts, right? See subject :-) >> We could either have one thread per PCB socket standby for >> this use, but that's probably a waste of threads, or we can >> snatch them from a pool of threads cached for that purpose. > >the second is probably enough. >but each "subsystem" may need to pre-declare how many threads >it wants in its pool. Hmm, well uhm. I really like things which dimension themselves, so if we can avoid more "maxuser" like junk if possible I would really like it. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message