Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 03:49:42 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Carlos Velasco <freebsd@newipnet.com> Cc: atkin901@yahoo.com Subject: Re[2]: sio: lots of silo overflows on Asus K8V with MoxaSmartioC104H/PCI solved Message-ID: <20040505034519.B11102@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200405041612370183.1C0502B8@192.168.128.16> References: <20040426111754.38a855c4.bm@malepartus.de> <20040426233925.Y5300@gamplex.bde.org> <c6u3nd$f8q$1@sea.gmane.org> <20040501212314.N20783@gamplex.bde.org> <20040503094236.6b7dc4a5.bm@malepartus.de> <200405041612370183.1C0502B8@192.168.128.16>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040505034519.B11102>