Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:40:36 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lots of malloc(M_WAITOK)'s in interrupt context from camisr Message-ID: <12432.1051717236@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:20:34 EDT." <16047.59842.60959.352839@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <16047.59842.60959.352839@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>, Andrew Gallatin writes: > >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.. I'm not sure you should infer too much yet... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?12432.1051717236>