Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:42:23 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" <asmrookie@gmail.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, "Hans Petter Selasky" <hselasky@c2i.net>, "John Baldwin" <jhb@freebsd.org>, kmacy@freebsd.org, perforce@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 98153 for review Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10606020342pdf67e45p7fee723e6cef3afd@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060602.013225.-924278806.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <200605311657.44921.jhb@freebsd.org> <b1fa29170606011726r78303d84y3d0116cff2174009@mail.gmail.com> <200606020856.11054.hselasky@c2i.net> <20060602.013225.-924278806.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2006/6/2, M. Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>: > In message: <200606020856.11054.hselasky@c2i.net> > Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> writes: > : On Friday 02 June 2006 02:26, Kip Macy wrote: > : > > I'd rather avoid this for now as it will have to be backed out for > : > > interrupt filters. > : > > : > I don't know anything about interrupt filters, so please let me know > : > what you have in mind. The whole of interrupt handling is far too > : > heavyweight at the moment. > : > > : > : As long as your code is not Giant locked, the standard interrupt handlers > : should not be that slow? > > They are very slow compared to a FAST interrupt handler, since there's > a full context switch :-( ... and since there's no context stealing (or, in another way, lazy scheduling for interrupt handlers is not implemented as it might be). Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10606020342pdf67e45p7fee723e6cef3afd>