Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:20:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lots of malloc(M_WAITOK)'s in interrupt context from camisr Message-ID: <16047.59842.60959.352839@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <8764.1051715905@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <16047.59314.532227.475952@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <8764.1051715905@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > In message <16047.59314.532227.475952@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>, Andrew Gallatin > writes: > > > >John Baldwin writes: > > > > > If you need to do more work in your interrupt routine than just wakeups > > > and dinking with registers, you can always wake up a software interrupt > > > handler or some other random kthread to do things that take a long amount > > > >Dumb question: Exactly what is one allowed to do in an INTR_FAST > >interrupt context? Obviously, you can't sleep. But can you call > >wakeup()? > > Calling wakeup() is just about it, but we should actually define it > more precisely in a suitable man-page. That would be cool. Since wakeup() uses a spinlock, I assume that spinlocks are generally OK too.. Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16047.59842.60959.352839>