Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:51:00 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Schmidt?= <sos@DeepCore.dk> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.3-RELEASE: WARNING - WRITE_DMA interrupt timout - what does it mean? Message-ID: <41921CC4.5010802@DeepCore.dk> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1041110102656.60848Y-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1041110102656.60848Y-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson wrote: > On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, S=F8ren Schmidt wrote: >=20 >=20 >>>I'm still a bit skeptical that the task queue is at fault -- I run my >>>notebook with continuous measurement of the latency to schedule tasks,= >>>generating a warning for any latency > .5 seconds, and the only time I= >>>ever see that sort of latency is during the boot process when ACPI has= >>>scheduled a task to run, but the task queue thread has not yet been >>>allowed to run: >> >>Right, the timeout is 5 secs. I havn't looked into how the taskqueues >>are handled recently, but in case of ATA read/writes it is the >>bio_taskqueue handled by geom thats in use not the catchall ones, does >>your timing cover that as well?=20 >=20 >=20 > Nope -- I had assumed that the suggested task problems in question was = the > use of taskqueue_enqueue() in ata-queue for the timeout, rather than th= e > bio_taskqueue() ata_completed() call. OK, then there is no idea in trying the patch, it wont tell us anything. --=20 -S=F8ren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41921CC4.5010802>