From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Aug 7 10:21:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (earth-nat-cw.backplane.com [208.161.114.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6530637B40C; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:21:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@earth.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.4/8.11.2) id f77HLBb33221; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:21:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:21:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200108071721.f77HLBb33221@earth.backplane.com> To: Garance A Drosihn Cc: Terry Lambert , Mike Smith , Zhihui Zhang , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Allocate a page at interrupt time References: <200108070739.f777dmi08218@mass.dis.org> <3B6FB0AE.8D40EF5D@mindspring.com> <200108071655.f77Gt9M32808@earth.backplane.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :I'd agree that is a specialized situation, one which wouldn't :be critical to many freebsd users. Is Terry right that the :current strategy will "lock us into virtual wire mode", in :some way which means that this specialized situation CANNOT :be handled? : :(it would be fine if it were "handled" via some specialized :kernel option, imo. I'm just wondering what the limitations :are. I do not mean to imply we should follow some different :strategy here, I'm just wondering...) : :-- :Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu In -current there is nothing preventing us from wiring interrupt *threads* to cpus. Wiring the actual interrupts themselves might or might not yield a performance improvement beyond that. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message