Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:10:57 -0700
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Interrupt Descriptions
Message-ID:  <4AD4FAF1.1060609@elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <200910131748.57945.jhb@freebsd.org>
References:  <200909301732.20589.jhb@freebsd.org> <200910131748.57945.jhb@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 September 2009 5:32:20 pm John Baldwin wrote:
>> A few folks have asked recently for the ability to add descriptive strings 
> to 
>> registered interrupt handlers.  This is especially true since the advent of 
>> MSI with multiple interrupts per device.  I hacked up a prototype today that 
>> adds a new 'bus_describe_intr()' that takes the IRQ resource, the void * 
>> cookie returned by bus_setup_intr() and var args description and appends 
> that 
>> to the interrupt name in the thread and vmstat -i info.  The current patch 
>> only has the MI bits and the MD bits for amd64 as well as a sample change to 
>> the igb(4) driver.
>>
>> The patch is at http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/intr_describe.patch.
>>
>> An example from this patch is:
>>
>>> vmstat -i
>> interrupt                          total       rate
>> irq1: atkbd0                           8          0
>> irq4: uart0                          751          5
>> irq6: fdc0                             6          0
>> irq14: ata0                           36          0
>> irq20: uhci0                          20          0
>> irq23: uhci3 ehci0                     2          0
>> irq28: mpt0                         1661         11
>> irq256: igb0:tx 0                    880          6
>> irq257: igb0:rx 0                   1098          7
>> irq258: igb0:link                      3          0
>> irq259: igb1:tx 0                      1          0
>> irq260: igb1:rx 0                    134          0
>> irq261: igb1:link                      3          0
> 
> Do folks feel that the issues with the intrnames and intrcnt API warrant
> delaying this work, or do folks have any objections to the proposed
> bus_describe_intr() API?  Personally I think that intrnames and intrcnt are
> certainly broken, but that they have been broken for quite a while and that
> these changes do not make them more broken than they currently are.  Also, I
> think that any fixes to intrcnt/intrnames would be orthogonal to
> bus_describe_intr().
> 


I see that in linux this information is available in /proc/(mumble)
and people use it.
I see no real reason that we should stop this work.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4AD4FAF1.1060609>