on 27/05/2013 10:21 Orit Moskovich said the following: > What is actually the difference between deferring a filter routine's work > using an ithread given to bus_setup_intr, or using the global taskqueue_swi > (implemented using interrupt thread)?
I think you mean taskqueue_fast. The difference is only in how much code you need to write. I do not think there is any significant difference in the resulting functionality. > What do you mean that the functionality is locked under INTR_FILTER? Please see the code. You have to use option INTR_FILTER to get the behavior I described earlier. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andriy Gapon [mailto:a...@freebsd.org] > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:11 AM > To: Konstantin Belousov > Cc: Orit Moskovich; freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: preemptive kernel > > on 27/05/2013 09:34 Konstantin Belousov said the following: >> Having both filter and ithread for the same interrupt is apparently >> possible but weird. I do not see anything which would prevent >> interrupt filter from being executed while the ithread is running. >> But again, this is very unusual setup. > > I wouldn't call it weird, but, yes, it is rare. It's a pretty normal > configuration when the filter acts as a filter and the handler acts as a > handler (in ithread). In other words, it would be a replacement for a > configuration where a filter is used and the filter offloads actual work to > non-interrupt context via a e.g. taskqueue. > But, hmm, this functionality is probably locked under INTR_FILTER option. > > -- > Andriy Gapon > -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
