Hi Jan,
> As lighter may mean that reducing the structure size also
> reduces the number of used cache lines, it might be a good
> idea. The additional complexity for entry removal is negligible.
My current working version is already lighter when it comes to the size
of additional data structur
Hi Jan,
> As lighter may mean that reducing the structure size also
> reduces the number of used cache lines, it might be a good
> idea. The additional complexity for entry removal is negligible.
My current working version is already lighter when it comes to the size
of additional data structur
Hi Dmitry,
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here goes another implementation of shared irqs on the nucleus layer.
> I have conducted a few tests and it seems to work. The test example is
> attached.
>
> There were 2 main issues concerning synchronization:
>
> 1) xnintr_attach() vs. xnintr_det
Hi Dmitry,
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here goes another implementation of shared irqs on the nucleus layer.
> I have conducted a few tests and it seems to work. The test example is
> attached.
>
> There were 2 main issues concerning synchronization:
>
> 1) xnintr_attach() vs. xnintr_det
Hi,
here goes another implementation of shared irqs on the nucleus layer.
I have conducted a few tests and it seems to work. The test example is attached.
There were 2 main issues concerning synchronization:
1) xnintr_attach() vs. xnintr_detach() (and each of them vs. itself)
The problem
Hi,
here goes another implementation of shared irqs on the nucleus layer.
I have conducted a few tests and it seems to work. The test example is attached.
There were 2 main issues concerning synchronization:
1) xnintr_attach() vs. xnintr_detach() (and each of them vs. itself)
The problem
