From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 14 08:13:59 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 75F4616A4CE for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:13:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hetzner.co.za (lfw.hetzner.co.za [196.7.18.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051F443D2D for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:13:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ianf@hetzner.co.za) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by hetzner.co.za with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1BZmb6-0005gM-00; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:13:40 +0200 To: "Markie" From: Ian FREISLICH In-Reply-To: Message from "Markie" of "Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:50:25 +0100." <002101c450c7$46a578e0$f700000a@ape> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:13:40 +0200 Sender: ianf@hetzner.co.za Message-Id: cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Interrupt storm detection 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: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:13:59 -0000 "Markie" wrote: > | On Fri, 2004-Jun-11 16:01:59 +0200, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > | > | >> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > | >> > | >> > I have a problem printing. The data rate through my parallel > | >> > port to my printer makes the kernel think that lpt0 is storming > | >> > at between 40k-49k irqs per second. Is there a way to tell the > | >> > kernel to > | > > | >Does a PII-266 constitute a slightly slower machine? > | > | I'm amazed you can get to >40K irqs/sec on a PII-266. > | > | Have you tried using lptcontrol(8) polling or extended mode? > | > | Your other option is to offload the interrupts - either get a > | network interface module for your printer or dedicate an old clunker > | as a print server. > > I had this same problem, by the sounds of it, on my "print server" on > -CURRENT a while back (a little 500MHz machine). I updated it about > a week after it happened and it went away... haven't updated since > though. Maybe this is your problem? This kernel was built from fresh sources the day before the problem was encountered. -- Ian Freislich