lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Today Linus redesigns the networking driver interface (was Re: tulip driver in ...)
    Date
    On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:27:36 +1000, 
    Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.csiro.au> wrote:
    >So a heuristic to avoid BH processing isn't really worthwhile, I now
    >think, nor is a return flag from interrupt handlers saying "please
    >don't process BH's now", since the (bh_active & bh_mask) test is good
    >enough.
    >The simple rule: "if you haven't registered/marked active a BH, then
    >you aren't going to trigger BH processing, so don't worry about it"
    >seems like the right thing.

    Something that has been puzzling me about all of this selective do or
    don't mark_bh(). If there is data to be processed then the BH must be
    run eventually. When does the interrupt handler finally decide to
    mark_bh()? The obvious way is on a later interrupt but what happens if
    no more interrupts arrive? Extremely unlikely but possible.

    The only other way to mark_bh() is something external to the interrupt
    handler, say a timer. But that just complicates the code - is it worth
    it? Does it really cost that much to run the BH mask?


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.020 / U:0.696 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site