Scott Long writes: > Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > <...> > > > >> Also, it's not so > >>much important which CPU gets the interrupt as it is which CPU runs the > >>ithread for that interrupt. I guess that you can get a little better > >>latency by preempting directly from the low-level interrupt handler into > >>the ithread, but I don't know if that is noticable noise above the cost > >>of the context switch and inevitable lock operations and contention > >>involved. > > > > > > What do you mean by "preempting directly from the low-level interrupt > > handler into the ithread" ? Do you mean running the ithread directly > > in the context of the hardware interrupt until it does something where > > it needed to block? Do we do this now? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Drew > > > > > > No, I just mean that the CPU running the low-level handler is likely > to schedule and run the ithread as soon as the interrupt exits, > preempting whatever thread happened to be running before the interrupt > occurred. This isn't context stealing, it's just preferential > scheduling. You still need to wind through the scheduler and do a > context switch to get there.
Oh, darn. Nevermind :) Drew _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
