Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 17:42:23 -0600 From: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A new api for asynchronous task execution Message-ID: <200005132342.RAA01739@berserker.bsdi.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
}
}The system defines specific implementations of queues which are drained at
}particular times (initially I have defined one using SWI). I want to make
}it as easy as possible to define different lightweight queues for various
}types of work. The 'enqueue' function pointer in the taskqueue structure
}defines the run policy for the queue.
}
I would agree that there is no reason to change what you
have for generic queueing. But for taskqueue_swi currently
and a possibly others in the future you not only need to
queue the event you want to cause a software interrupt to occur
at the soonest reasonable time. Putting the item on the work
queue does not seem sufficient. In particular I would argue the
following should be avoided
taskqueue_enqueue(struct taskqueue *queue, struct task *task)
{
int s = splhigh();
/*
* Count multiple enqueues.
*/
if (task->pending) {
task->pending++;
return;
}
STAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&queue->queue, task, link);
task->pending = 1;
if (queue->enqueue)
queue->enqueue(queue);
if (queueu == taskqueue_swi) <------
setsoftaskqueue(); <------
splx(s);
}
Chuck
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200005132342.RAA01739>