Date: 10 May 2003 21:33:53 +0100 From: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com> To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Interrupt latency problems Message-ID: <1052598832.27195.37.camel@cf.freebsd-services.com> In-Reply-To: <20030510180214.GA45682@unixdaemons.com> References: <200305101441.h4AEfZrQ008839@spider.deepcore.dk> <1052585648.27195.19.camel@cf.freebsd-services.com> <20030510180214.GA45682@unixdaemons.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2003-05-10 at 19:02, Bosko Milekic wrote: > The thing is that in 5.x the Giant lock is more expensive in itself > and interrupts themselves are blocked on Giant. Further, you have to Ahh ok, I didn't know that the interrupts themselves were blocked in 5.x which explains why some of them are just going missing. I was thinking that at least the hardware interrupt handler got to run as it did in 4.x but now that I think that through it doesn't make sense since the handler would end up needing to lock on something pretty soon after starting whereas in 4.x there'd only be one process in the kernel and the interrupt could be serviced in the bottom half without getting in the way of anything else. -- Paul Richards
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1052598832.27195.37.camel>