Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:24:14 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: INTR_FILTER? Message-ID: <4986E5EE.1070302@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <86915A93-6023-465F-B937-E9905AFDA4B0@freebsd.org> References: <49819757.2010002@icyb.net.ua> <8F669786-30A2-458C-8A6B-3272297ADE14@freebsd.org> <4981EC95.1090002@icyb.net.ua> <E61A19DE-0435-44EC-A24F-F9330F3DF1E6@freebsd.org> <4986DB28.6080503@icyb.net.ua> <3EAA1D8D-606B-4F59-81B6-644B56AE4831@freebsd.org> <4986E08F.2010305@icyb.net.ua> <86915A93-6023-465F-B937-E9905AFDA4B0@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 02/02/2009 14:17 Rui Paulo said the following:
>
> On 2 Feb 2009, at 12:01, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
> I haven't read the details of the implementation yet, but how does that
> work?
As I understand, in non-INTR_FILTER case there is one ithread per
interrupt vector ("IRQ"), in INTR_FILTER case there is an ithread per
handler ("driver"). This is a little bit simplified.
--
Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4986E5EE.1070302>