From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 2 12:01:22 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E713810656D0; Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:01:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25218FC35; Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:01:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id OAA11522; Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:01:20 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Message-ID: <4986E08F.2010305@icyb.net.ua> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:01:19 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090110) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rui Paulo References: <49819757.2010002@icyb.net.ua> <8F669786-30A2-458C-8A6B-3272297ADE14@freebsd.org> <4981EC95.1090002@icyb.net.ua> <4986DB28.6080503@icyb.net.ua> <3EAA1D8D-606B-4F59-81B6-644B56AE4831@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <3EAA1D8D-606B-4F59-81B6-644B56AE4831@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: INTR_FILTER? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:01:30 -0000 on 02/02/2009 13:53 Rui Paulo said the following: > > On 2 Feb 2009, at 11:38, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> on 30/01/2009 00:30 Rui Paulo said the following: >>> On 29 Jan 2009, at 17:51, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>>> BTW, INTR_FILTER seems quite useful. Why, then, it is not the default? >>> >>> The drivers would have to be ported to INTR_FILTER. Right now, only asmc >>> is using INTR_FILTER, so I don't think there is much gain in making it >>> the default. >> >> I am not sure about this part. From the code it seems that INTR_FILTER >> is backward-compatible, i.e. it gives something and doesn't take away >> anything. The API and conventions seems to be the same too. >> There could be some edge cases, of course. > > Ok, but why enable it in GENERIC right now if the only driver that uses > INTR_FILTER is asmc? > There's not much point in enabling it now. Maybe in the future. I may be wrong but this could auto-magically improve some cases where there are shared interrupts between drivers with ithreads. In this case, I think, their interrupt handler would be run "in parallel" instead of sequentially. Also, it would make it easier to write new drivers - one would not have to code for !INTR_FILTER case. -- Andriy Gapon