On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 08:06:37AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
Overall, the whole subject of locking in the kernel is too hard for new
people to figure out, and I think it's great that Kamil is writing an
overview for it.
Indeed, e.g., my first stab at looking at vnd
On Fri 19 Jun 2015 at 11:45:40 +0200, Edgar Fuß wrote:
To eleborate, as I seem to have been too cryptic in my references: I learned
the terms top and bottom half from The Design and Implementation of the
4.4BSD Operating System by McKusick, Bostic, Karels and Quaterman. The
text on page 51
Because of this transition from halves to thirds,
OK, I understand.
and because of []confusion with Linux,
Sigh.
the term bottom half may now be best avoided.
OK.
it's great that Kamil is writing an overview for it.
YES.
On 2015-06-19 14:27, Edgar Fuß wrote:
as the Linux bottom halves do not handle the hardware interrupt
itself, and they can be interrupted by anything.
Oh well. So they use a well-established terminology to meen something
different from what it originally meant. Sigh.
Thanks for the
On 2015-06-19 11:45, Edgar Fuß wrote:
Runs on kernel stack in kernel space is not the same thing as the Linux
concept of bottom half. :-)
I don't know what the Linux (or VMS or Windows) concept of nottom half is.
I thought I knew what the BSD concept of kernel halves is.
I can't comment
as the Linux bottom halves do not handle the hardware interrupt
itself, and they can be interrupted by anything.
Oh well. So they use a well-established terminology to meen something
different from what it originally meant. Sigh.
Thanks for the explanation.
Runs on kernel stack in kernel space is not the same thing as the Linux
concept of bottom half. :-)
I don't know what the Linux (or VMS or Windows) concept of nottom half is.
I thought I knew what the BSD concept of kernel halves is.
I don't know what the figured referred to is,
Figure 3.1
Taylor R Campbell campb...@mumble.net writes:
What I meant when I said that to Kamil is that we don't have any
formalized notion called `top half' and `bottom half'. We have hard
interrupt handlers which are supposed to have small bounded latency,
and we have soft interrupt handlers
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-06-19 11:45, Edgar Fu?? wrote:
Runs on kernel stack in kernel space is not the same thing as the Linux
concept of bottom half. :-)
I don't know what the Linux (or VMS or Windows) concept of nottom half is.
I thought I knew what
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:14:09PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
1. I was told that kernel halves are not used in NetBSD.
I don't get that. Does NetBSD handle interrupts in a way totally different
from BSD?
bottom halves in the sense used are a linux thing.
--
David A. Holland
any
formalized notion called `top half' and `bottom half'. We have hard
interrupt handlers which are supposed to have small bounded latency,
and we have soft interrupt handlers and kernel threads at lower
priorities to which hard interrupt handlers defer long computations
and I/O.
1. I was told that kernel halves are not used in NetBSD.
I don't get that. Does NetBSD handle interrupts in a way totally different
from BSD?
bottom halves in the sense used are a linux thing.
Hugh? I learned the term from a red book with a daemon on the cover. I very
much doubt the four authors are writing about linux given the book's title.
The figure says Never scheduled, cannot block. Runs on kernel stack in
kernel address space.
on kernel stack in
kernel address space. Is this outdated?
Runs on kernel stack in kernel space is not the same thing as the
Linux concept of bottom half. :-)
That said, I don't know what the figured referred to is, but the text
quoted do not say bottom half at least...
Johnny
--
Johnny
14 matches
Mail list logo
