From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 4 10:49:48 2004 Return-Path: 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 6CF0B16A4CE for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 10:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout2.pacific.net.au (mailout2.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD9943D2D for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 10:49:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailproxy2.pacific.net.au (mailproxy2.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.87])i44Hnk5v019900; Wed, 5 May 2004 03:49:46 +1000 Received: from gamplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246]) i44HnhHW031301; Wed, 5 May 2004 03:49:44 +1000 Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 03:49:42 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org To: Carlos Velasco In-Reply-To: <200405041612370183.1C0502B8@192.168.128.16> Message-ID: <20040505034519.B11102@gamplex.bde.org> References: <20040426111754.38a855c4.bm@malepartus.de> <20040426233925.Y5300@gamplex.bde.org> <20040501212314.N20783@gamplex.bde.org> <20040503094236.6b7dc4a5.bm@malepartus.de> <200405041612370183.1C0502B8@192.168.128.16> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Burkard Meyendriesch cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: atkin901@yahoo.com Subject: Re[2]: sio: lots of silo overflows on Asus K8V with MoxaSmartioC104H/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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 17:49:48 -0000 On Tue, 4 May 2004, Carlos Velasco wrote: > 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 Your problem seems to be different because you get interrupt-level overflows instead of silo overflows. There is nothing corresponding to PUC_FASTINTR in for pccards, so I would have expected silo overflows if anything. Bruce