Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 07:21:15 +0000 From: Orit Moskovich <oritm@mellanox.com> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org> Subject: RE: preemptive kernel Message-ID: <981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0D57D1@MTLDAG01.mtl.com> In-Reply-To: <51A306A8.1010201@FreeBSD.org> References: <981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0D5590@MTLDAG01.mtl.com> <20130526154752.GT3047@kib.kiev.ua> <981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0D56E0@MTLDAG01.mtl.com> <20130527063432.GY3047@kib.kiev.ua> <51A306A8.1010201@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
What is actually the difference between deferring a filter routine's work u= sing an ithread given to bus_setup_intr, or using the global taskqueue_swi = (implemented using interrupt thread)? What do you mean that the functionality is locked under INTR_FILTER? -----Original Message----- From: Andriy Gapon [mailto:avg@FreeBSD.org]=20 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=20 > possible but weird. I do not see anything which would prevent=20 > interrupt filter from being executed while the ithread is running. =20 > But again, this is very unusual setup. I wouldn't call it weird, but, yes, it is rare. It's a pretty normal confi= guration 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 configurati= on where a filter is used and the filter offloads actual work to non-interr= upt context via a e.g. taskqueue. But, hmm, this functionality is probably locked under INTR_FILTER option. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0D57D1>