Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<...>
Also, it's not so
much important which CPU gets the interrupt as it is which CPU runs the
ithread for that interrupt. I guess that you can get a little better
latency by preempting directly from the low-level interrupt handler into
the ithread, but I don't know if that is noticable noise above the cost
of the context switch and inevitable lock operations and contention
involved.
What do you mean by "preempting directly from the low-level interrupt
handler into the ithread" ? Do you mean running the ithread directly
in the context of the hardware interrupt until it does something where
it needed to block? Do we do this now?
Thanks,
Drew
No, I just mean that the CPU running the low-level handler is likely
to schedule and run the ithread as soon as the interrupt exits,
preempting whatever thread happened to be running before the interrupt
occurred. This isn't context stealing, it's just preferential
scheduling. You still need to wind through the scheduler and do a
context switch to get there.
Scott
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
