On 5/15/07, Dong Feng <middle.fengdong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Aliter, i think so.How can an interrupt's execution time go unaccounted then?
I guess it does not, only the current processes running time is accounted for.
Thoughts?
Yes, you are right as i can infer. thats why ISRs are special kernel control paths.
But the poster asked, why can't we make ISRs to share context with the interrupted process if
it not holding any locks? This is rather a desing issues IMO rather than imlementation, isnt it?
I guess even if it is possible, it would over complicate the handler code. Better trying to keep it simple i guess. Please CMIIW
My query here was related to your previous reply.Just wanted to pit some doubts as raised by the orirignal poster.That's it.
Thank you
~psr
>
> good enough, but i have a query regarding this then.
> On a 8K kernel stack system, doesn't interrupts share the stack associated
> with the current process which was interrupted?
Yes, I think so.
Yes it does.
> Doesn't interrupt steals the CPU slice time allocated to the running process
> to run?
I don't think so but I am not sure.
Aliter, i think so.How can an interrupt's execution time go unaccounted then?
I guess it does not, only the current processes running time is accounted for.
Thoughts?
> Doesn't it run in current process's context ?
>
No. I think the concept of process context is a higher-level logical
concept. Though the interrupt share stack with the interrupted
process, in my opinion it logically does not share the context with
the process.
Yes, you are right as i can infer. thats why ISRs are special kernel control paths.
But the poster asked, why can't we make ISRs to share context with the interrupted process if
it not holding any locks? This is rather a desing issues IMO rather than imlementation, isnt it?
I guess even if it is possible, it would over complicate the handler code. Better trying to keep it simple i guess. Please CMIIW
[snip]
But I do not see the exact relationship between your specific queries
and the original question. Could you elaborate?
My query here was related to your previous reply.Just wanted to pit some doubts as raised by the orirignal poster.That's it.
Thank you
~psr
--
play the game
