Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:51:49 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, arch@freebsd.org, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tidying up the interrupt registration process Message-ID: <20000719135149.I12072@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <200007190358.VAA09445@berserker.bsdi.com> References: <200007190358.VAA09445@berserker.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, 18 July 2000 at 21:58:57 -0600, Chuck Paterson wrote: > > }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. Does BSD/OS have fast interrupts? I haven't seen any evidence. In FreeBSD, a fast interrupt runs before EOI, so we can't convert it to a thread. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers 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?20000719135149.I12072>