INTR_FILTER?

[Rui Paulo]

On 2 Feb 2009, at 12:01, Andriy Gapon wrote:

> on 02/02/2009 13:53 Rui Paulo said the following:
>>
>> On 2 Feb 2009, at 11:38, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>>> on 30/01/2009 00:30 Rui Paulo said the following:
>>>> On 29 Jan 2009, at 17:51, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>>> BTW, INTR_FILTER seems quite useful. Why, then, it is not the  
>>>>> default?
>>>>
>>>> The drivers would have to be ported to INTR_FILTER. Right now,  
>>>> only asmc
>>>> is using INTR_FILTER, so I don't think there is much gain in  
>>>> making it
>>>> the default.
>>>
>>> I am not sure about this part. From the code it seems that  
>>> INTR_FILTER
>>> is backward-compatible, i.e. it gives something and doesn't take  
>>> away
>>> anything. The API and conventions seems to be the same too.
>>> There could be some edge cases, of course.
>>
>> Ok, but why enable it in GENERIC right now if the only driver that  
>> uses
>> INTR_FILTER is asmc?
>> There's not much point in enabling it now. Maybe in the future.
>
> I may be wrong but this could auto-magically improve some cases where
> there are shared interrupts between drivers with ithreads. In this  
> case,
> I think, their interrupt handler would be run "in parallel" instead of
> sequentially.

I haven't read the details of the implementation yet, but how does  
that work?

> Also, it would make it easier to write new drivers - one would not  
> have
> to code for !INTR_FILTER case.


Yes, but essentially, backporting needs the !INTR_FILTER case. And I  
don't know about !i386 && !amd64 archs.

--
Rui Paulo

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20090202/f858cd9d/PGP.pgp