From owner-freebsd-current Mon Feb 11 19:35: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from newman2.bestweb.net (newman2.bestweb.net [209.94.102.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4FA37B50B; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:18:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from okeeffe.bestweb.net (okeefe.bestweb.net [209.94.100.110]) by newman2.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8008231C7; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:17:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by okeeffe.bestweb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id A63CC9F383; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:12:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 11:30:10 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans To: Julian Elischer Cc: , FreeBSD current users Subject: Re: "fast" interrupt handler threads. Message-Id: <20020212021234.A63CC9F383@okeeffe.bestweb.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > > Yes, anything that reaches doreti checks for ASTs and runs userret() if > > necessary and possible (only for returns to user mode). > > > > Hmm, this check seems to be inadequate for fast interrupts. There is > > no check for rescheduling if the return is to kernel mode. > > Do you plan on fixing anything you find wrong here? Sure. I think this is only a minor problem. Most processes don't stay in the kernel for long, and things scheduled in fast interrupt handlers aren't very time-critical (but softclock should run before the next hardclock!). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message