From owner-freebsd-arch Wed May 17 10:28: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4507637BCAC for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 10:28:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr05.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09961; Wed, 17 May 2000 10:27:27 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr05.primenet.com(206.165.6.205) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAZTaGrt; Wed May 17 10:27:13 2000 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA06011; Wed, 17 May 2000 10:27:40 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <200005171727.KAA06011@usr05.primenet.com> Subject: Re: A new api for asynchronous task execution To: dfr@nlsystems.com (Doug Rabson) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 17:27:40 +0000 (GMT) Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Doug Rabson" at May 12, 2000 08:44:39 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I'm planning to add a new system to the kernel which should make it much > easier for drivers (especially loadable drivers) to use software > interrupts to implement split-level interrupt handlers. The api was > inspired by the Linux tqueue system but the implementation is quite > different. I would suggest that there is probably a lot to be learned from the NT split interrupt handling model, if the relative performance of NT and Solartis vs. BSD 4.4 based operating systems and Linux is any indicator. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message