Date: Thu, 30 Mar 95 18:09:59 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: vernick@cs.sunysb.edu, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: help with splbio, splnet, spl... Message-ID: <9503310110.AA29972@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199503310019.QAA00334@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Mar 30, 95 04:19:31 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >It's a tiered interrupt scheme. You can block all interrupts > >at or below a specified priority while you are doing high > >priority stuff so that it gets done in time. The "fast" > >interrupts can't be blocked. > > It doesn't work this way in FreeBSD. It is not a tierd interrupt scheme. > Each of the interrupt classes are independant and do NOT block the others. The > only exception to this is tty and net are ored together if you are using SLIP > or PPP (the reason should be obvious). This must be (relatively) new... Why isn't it tiered? This conflicts with what you said about splclock() and splhigh() in your previous post: ] splhigh() and splclock() block all interrupts except "fast" interrupts. Would it be more correct to say that it is partially tiered, with the potential for multiple interrupt classes in a single tier not interfering with each other? This would accomodate both the behaviour you are describing in this post and the quote from your previous post... Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9503310110.AA29972>