From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jul 18 20:59:32 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (berserker.twistedbit.com [199.79.183.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39E337B7FE; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:59:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cp@berserker.bsdi.com) Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (cp@LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by berserker.bsdi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09445; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 21:58:57 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200007190358.VAA09445@berserker.bsdi.com> To: Greg Lehey Cc: Warner Losh , arch@freebsd.org, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tidying up the interrupt registration process From: Chuck Paterson Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 21:58:57 -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG }That's what I thought. Does anybody else see a reason to convert fast }interrupts into threads? The short answer is no, you absolutely don't want to convert them to fully instantiated threads, especially when you only have a heavy wait solution. There is another middle ground that is less clear, and it depends partially on what you deem a thread. If you just switch the stack pointer and curproc, but use spin locks and don't allow for a context switch are you converting it to a thread. At this point the statistical stuff will charge time properly to interrupts rather than user processes, or other kernel processes, you also don't have to worry about pathological cases blowing out the stack. Chuck To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message