Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:38:03 -0500 From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 intr_machdep.c io_apic.c local_apic.c mp_machdep.c src/sys/amd64/include apicvar.h intr_machdep.h src/sys/amd64/isa atpic.c src/sys/i386/i386 intr_machdep.c io_apic.c local_apic.c mp_machdep.c ... Message-ID: <20060301113803.A8330@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <4404D37E.9040502@samsco.org>; from scottl@samsco.org on Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 03:49:34PM -0700 References: <200602282224.k1SMOtJt070241@repoman.freebsd.org> <200602281735.12240.jhb@freebsd.org> <4404D37E.9040502@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Long [scottl@samsco.org] wrote: <...> > Also, it's not so > much important which CPU gets the interrupt as it is which CPU runs the > ithread for that interrupt. I guess that you can get a little better > latency by preempting directly from the low-level interrupt handler into > the ithread, but I don't know if that is noticable noise above the cost > of the context switch and inevitable lock operations and contention > involved. What do you mean by "preempting directly from the low-level interrupt handler into the ithread" ? Do you mean running the ithread directly in the context of the hardware interrupt until it does something where it needed to block? Do we do this now? Thanks, Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060301113803.A8330>