From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 12 22:09:35 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B2D16A4CE for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:09:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75BCE43D39 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:09:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iACM8H0l031395; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:08:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)iACM8HRH031392; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:08:17 GMT (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:08:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20041112.150359.11373761.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: usb with fast interrupts X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:09:35 -0000 On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: > Robert Watson writes: > : > : On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > : > Our usb system supports soft interrupts, but we currently don't make > : > productive use of them. The following makes interrupts fast interrupts > : > and uses taskqueues to queue data to a SWI. > : > : It looks like INTR_FAST is spelt as INTR_MPSAFE in your patch. Did you > : mean instead to spell it INTR_FAST? > > Actually, I ment what the patch said, but the description was incorrect. > It should have just said MPSAFE interrupts, not FAST interrupts. Sounds good to me. Scott's comments on possibly wanting a non-task worker may well be valid, though. Or you can do what acpi and other components do: use the task queue mechanism but provide their own kernel thread. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Principal Research Scientist, McAfee Research