Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: pool_cache_invalidate(9) (wrong?) semantic -- enable xcall invalidation

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 01:09:49AM +0100, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> - force all xcall(9) API consumers to pass dynamically allocated
> arguments, a bit like workqueue(9) enqueues works. Scheduling
> xcall(9) is now managed by a SIMPLEQ() of requests.
> - extends softint(9) API so we can pass arguments to it as well as
> the targetted CPU(s) (optional argument).
> The last two points make me think that the softint(9), workqueue(9)
> and xcall(9) APIs have a potential for unification; all of these are
> somewhat redundant, they all schedule/signal/dispatch stuff to other
> threads, albeit under different conditions though.

See "Kernel Continuations" in <>.
IIRC, the document does not contemplate putting xcall(9) under
the proposed kernel-continuations framework, but it does mention
both softints and workqueues as candidates for unification under


David Young    Urbana, IL    (217) 721-9981

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index