From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 23 03:54:47 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1FB16A4E2; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:54:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from blake.polstra.com (blake.polstra.com [64.81.189.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6638B43D72; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:54:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from strings.polstra.com (strings.polstra.com [64.81.189.67]) by blake.polstra.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7N3siuO014028; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:54:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.5 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20060823003109.GB17902@cdnetworks.co.kr> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:54:44 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra To: Pyun YongHyeon Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, "Patrick M. Hausen" , cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Gleb Smirnoff , Pyun YongHyeon Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/em if_em.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:54:47 -0000 On 23-Aug-2006 Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 07:23:33PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > I think that problem is different one. That problem happens when > interrupt is shared with other devices. In these configuration > em(4) misses lots of Tx completion interrupts and devices that > use the shared interrupt stop working in the long run. > It seems that debug.mpsafenet=0 mitigate the issue. > > > So I think there is a problem in FreeBSD or driver, not in chip. > > > Agreed. If my memory serve me right it introduced right after > switching to taskqueue(9) in interrupt handling(rev, 1.98). I was wondering about something in connection with this. The em interrupt handler is now a "fast" handler, but the interrupt is still allocated with bus_alloc_resource_any(..., RF_SHAREABLE). If I remember correctly, fast interrupts cannot be shared. So, isn't it wrong to allocate the interrupt with RF_SHAREABLE? John