From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jan 11 20:59:25 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B57016A4CE
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:59:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mho.com (smtp.mho.net [64.58.4.6])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 05D9A43D39
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:59:24 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org)
Received: (qmail 71292 invoked by uid 1002); 12 Jan 2004 04:59:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) (64.58.1.252)
  by smtp.mho.net with SMTP; 12 Jan 2004 04:59:21 -0000
Message-ID: <40022941.6030703@freebsd.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:57:37 -0700
From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031103
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
References: <20040111234854.L36463-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
In-Reply-To: <20040111234854.L36463-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Interrupt API change
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 04:59:25 -0000

Jeff Roberson wrote:
> 
> There are still significant optimizations to be done in interrupt
> scheduling.  It seems to me that the filter idea is not a good one if we
> can make ithread scheduling extremely cheap, which we can.  Ideally, it
> should just be little more than a stack switch.  I'd rather see us put
> effort into this than put effort into defeating the goal of a system which
> we have not even finished implementing yet.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jeff
> 

I completely agree.  However, I don't have the knowledge to do these
optimizations, so I'm preparing this as a contingency plan.  If you,
Peter, Bosko, etc, can put your heads together and come up with a 
prototype in the next few weeks, that would be awesome.

Scott