Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 01:23:32 -0700 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Nick Hibma <n_hibma@calcaphon.com> Cc: FreeBSD CURRENT Mailing List <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: irunning, width in bits. Message-ID: <200006260823.BAA00624@mass.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:40:31 BST." <Pine.BSF.4.20.0006210034060.34122-100000@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > What about shared interrupts? How are they going to be treated? With the > spl leaving the arena it somehow looks feasible to run one interrupt > source on two different threads if there are two pieces of hardware > attached to the same interrupt line. > > >From what I understood from dfr, when switching away from an interrupt > handler it is converted into a full thread. When the second piece of > hardware fires an interrupt it could then run at the same time. I thought of this almost immediately - it's a bad idea though because it makes it hard to determine when to EOI an interrupt. If you expect to perform significant processing in your interrupt handler, you should consider a taskq. -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006260823.BAA00624>