Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:46:57 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Raymond Kohler <raymond.j.kohler@lmco.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: questions about the state of current Message-ID: <200210292146.g9TLkvWi010975@apollo.backplane.com> References: <2570443.1035916854787.JavaMail.wshttp@emss03g01.ems.lmco.com> <3DBEF55E.A0F9ED1B@mindspring.com> <200210292106.g9TL6aoc010659@apollo.backplane.com> <3DBEFE24.1E9DDB89@mindspring.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
:I agree that "it's to be expected", but the "it doesn't matter"
:argument is pretty lame. It matters. Coming to FreeBSD the
:first time, I would definitely make a decision for 4.7 vs. 5.x
:if performance were an issue for me. I still have not seen a
:reasonable justification for interrupt threads (for example),
:except that they are easier to understand and program.
:
:-- Terry
Interrupt threads have 'grown' on me. I like them.
But I come from an embedded world where switching threads
costs no more then a procedure call. The way I figure it,
we will eventually be able to make -current's scheduler
efficient enough such that the overhead of switching to
an interrupt thread becomes a non-issue, and they take care
of the big problem we've always had with interrupts under
SMP... managing interrupts in an SMP environment.
I am somewhat partial to the interrupt context stealing
idea too, though I'm not sure if the added complexity is
worth it (time may be better spent improving the scheduler).
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200210292146.g9TLkvWi010975>