Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 14:01:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@caldera.de> Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, Amit Shah <amitshah@techie.com>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: threaded device drivers Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0108181356590.59594-100000@beppo> In-Reply-To: <20010818224642.A14857@caldera.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oops- sorry- I got confused over what you were referring to. Apologies! For some reason I thought you were talking about linux kernel threads. The schedule_task just becomes something that keventd thread would run- it isn't available in 2.2.X, and the schedule_task functions says: * May be called from interrupt context. The scheduled function is run at some * time in the near future by the keventd kernel thread. If it can sleep, it * should be designed to do so for the minimum possible time, as it will be * stalling all other scheduled tasks. which means that it's more sensible to do your own thread anyway. On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 01:22:07PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > > The linux schedule_task functions aren't all that lightweight either. > > > > Did you actually take a look? I bet you mean something else. > The cost of schedule_task is basically allocation of an 24byte > struct and one wakeup. > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0108181356590.59594-100000>