From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May  4 07:36:24 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 825F216A4CF
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Tue,  4 May 2004 07:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.newipnet.com (5.Red-80-32-157.pooles.rima-tde.net
	[80.32.157.5])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 470EC43D39
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Tue,  4 May 2004 07:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from freebsd@newipnet.com)
Received: by smtp.newipnet.com (ESMTP Server, from userid 511)
	id 9C17C2051B; Tue,  4 May 2004 16:36:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from madre (madre.newipnet.com [192.168.128.4])
	by smtp.newipnet.com (ESMTP Server) with ESMTP
	id 9E186204DB; Tue,  4 May 2004 16:36:16 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <200405041612370183.1C0502B8@192.168.128.16>
In-Reply-To: <20040504221059.W9822@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <20040426111754.38a855c4.bm@malepartus.de>
 <20040426233925.Y5300@gamplex.bde.org>
 <c6u3nd$f8q$1@sea.gmane.org>
 <20040501212314.N20783@gamplex.bde.org>
 <20040503145149.R3992@gamplex.bde.org>
 <20040503094236.6b7dc4a5.bm@malepartus.de>
 <20040504221059.W9822@gamplex.bde.org>
X-Mailer: Courier 3.50.00.09.1097 (http://www.rosecitysoftware.com) (P)
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 16:12:37 +0200
From: "Carlos Velasco" <freebsd@newipnet.com>
To: "Bruce Evans" <bde@zeta.org.au>,
	"Burkard Meyendriesch" <bm@malepartus.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on atlas.newipnet.com
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-104.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,USER_IN_WHITELIST 
	autolearn=ham version=2.63
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
cc: atkin901@yahoo.com
Subject: Re[2]: sio: lots of silo overflows on Asus K8V with Moxa
 SmartioC104H/PCI solved
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 14:36:24 -0000

On 05/05/2004 at 0:04 Bruce Evans wrote:

>So much for my theory that the problem is contention with a low priority
>thread.  Since holding a spin lock or otherwise disabling interrupts for
>too long would also break the PUC_FASTINTR case, the problem must be that
>the highest priority runnable thread (which with my patch can only be the
>sio (puc) ithread if that thread is runnable) is not always run.  This is
>quite likely to be just the old bug that handling of interrupts which
>can't be handled immediately might be delayed for too long.  From
>ithread_schedule():

Bruce,

Could this be relationated to my problem with "interrupt-level buffer
overflows " posted on next thread?
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-May/026697.html

Regards,
Carlos Velasco