From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jan 23 11: 6:37 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from pike.osd.bsdi.com (unknown [204.216.28.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B4AA37B698 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:06:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from foo.osd.bsdi.com (root@foo.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.137]) by pike.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f0NJ5hx51796; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:05:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@foo.osd.bsdi.com) Received: (from jhb@localhost) by foo.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f0NJ5JO26566; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:05:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20010123105448.T26076@fw.wintelcom.net> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:05:19 -0800 (PST) Organization: BSD, Inc. From: John Baldwin To: Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: Second zone allocator patch Cc: Bruce Evans , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Dag-Erling Smorgrav Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 23-Jan-01 Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * John Baldwin [010123 10:28] wrote: >> Yes, but the zone allocator can just use normal mutexes and achieve this. >> No >> need for spin mutexes. Also, to help with the problem of a software or >> hardware interrupt handler blocking and stalling other interrups, Jake and I >> have toyed with the notion of creating a new kthread to run the other >> handlers >> when an ithread blocks on a mutex, so that the other handlers wouldn't be >> broken. For hardware interrupts, this would require a refcount on the >> intrhand >> "interrupt source" so that the interrupt can be re-enabled when the refcount >> hits 0. However, this is only in conceptual stage right now, and as an >> optimizaation, is a bit down the priority list. > > Hmm, sort of like my suggestion at BAFUG but slower and with more > context switches? :) I really don't think you want multiple hardware > interrupts, but having multiple software interrupts is needed to > provide SMP scalability of the network stack. It would only kick in during a mutex block, i.e. in ithd_fixup() when we get to the point that that exists. However, stuff like this is not something to be worrying about anytime soon. -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.Baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message