From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat May 10 13:38:38 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1739F37B401
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 10 May 2003 13:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0.freebsd-services.com (survey.codeburst.net
	[195.149.39.161])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7354C43F93
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 10 May 2003 13:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from paul@freebsd-services.com)
Received: from [192.168.7.2] (freebsd.gotadsl.co.uk [81.6.249.198])
	by mx0.freebsd-services.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 424D81B211; Sat, 10 May 2003 21:38:36 +0100 (BST)
From: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com>
To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030510180214.GA45682@unixdaemons.com>
References: <200305101441.h4AEfZrQ008839@spider.deepcore.dk>
	 <1052585648.27195.19.camel@cf.freebsd-services.com>
	 <20030510180214.GA45682@unixdaemons.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: FreeBSD Services Ltd
Message-Id: <1052598832.27195.37.camel@cf.freebsd-services.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 
Date: 10 May 2003 21:33:53 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: Soeren Schmidt <sos@spider.deepcore.dk>
cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Interrupt latency problems
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 20:38:38 -0000

On Sat, 2003-05-10 at 19:02, Bosko Milekic wrote:

>   The thing is that in 5.x the Giant lock is more expensive in itself
>   and interrupts themselves are blocked on Giant.  Further, you have to


Ahh ok, I didn't know that the interrupts themselves were blocked in 5.x
which explains why some of them are just going missing. I was thinking
that at least the hardware interrupt handler got to run as it did in 4.x
but now that I think that through it doesn't make sense since the
handler would end up needing to lock on something pretty soon after
starting whereas in 4.x there'd only be one process in the kernel and
the interrupt could be serviced in the bottom half without getting in
the way of anything else.
 
-- 
Paul Richards