Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:01:19 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: INTR_FILTER? Message-ID: <4986E08F.2010305@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <3EAA1D8D-606B-4F59-81B6-644B56AE4831@freebsd.org> References: <49819757.2010002@icyb.net.ua> <8F669786-30A2-458C-8A6B-3272297ADE14@freebsd.org> <4981EC95.1090002@icyb.net.ua> <E61A19DE-0435-44EC-A24F-F9330F3DF1E6@freebsd.org> <4986DB28.6080503@icyb.net.ua> <3EAA1D8D-606B-4F59-81B6-644B56AE4831@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 02/02/2009 13:53 Rui Paulo said the following: > > On 2 Feb 2009, at 11:38, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> on 30/01/2009 00:30 Rui Paulo said the following: >>> On 29 Jan 2009, at 17:51, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>>> BTW, INTR_FILTER seems quite useful. Why, then, it is not the default? >>> >>> The drivers would have to be ported to INTR_FILTER. Right now, only asmc >>> is using INTR_FILTER, so I don't think there is much gain in making it >>> the default. >> >> I am not sure about this part. From the code it seems that INTR_FILTER >> is backward-compatible, i.e. it gives something and doesn't take away >> anything. The API and conventions seems to be the same too. >> There could be some edge cases, of course. > > Ok, but why enable it in GENERIC right now if the only driver that uses > INTR_FILTER is asmc? > There's not much point in enabling it now. Maybe in the future. I may be wrong but this could auto-magically improve some cases where there are shared interrupts between drivers with ithreads. In this case, I think, their interrupt handler would be run "in parallel" instead of sequentially. Also, it would make it easier to write new drivers - one would not have to code for !INTR_FILTER case. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4986E08F.2010305>