From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu May 27 14:41:31 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [207.252.1.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603D215A24
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 27 May 1999 14:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dennis@etinc.com)
Received: from dbsys (dbsys.etinc.com [207.252.1.18])
	by etinc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA04730;
	Thu, 27 May 1999 17:40:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199905272140.RAA04730@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:37:25 -0400
To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: Re: mbuf stuff 
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199905271926.MAA01660@dingo.cdrom.com>
References: <Your message of "Thu, 27 May 1999 11:39:11 EDT."             <199905271642.MAA03346@etinc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

At 12:26 PM 5/27/99 -0700, you wrote:
>> 
>> We've encountered a situation where mbuf allocations inside a device
>> interrupt handler fails occasionally...and it always seems to happen when
>> rtalloc() is interrupted. Is this due to some sort of locking (rtalloc is
>> run at splnet())...should it perhaps be run at splimp() to avoid this
problem?
>
>It sounds like your device's interrupt handler should be in the 'net' 
>mask; you certainly shouldn't be doing anything that manipulates mbufs 
>in a non-'net'-masked interrupt handler.

Well how does one check/set this?

>
>> What other causes for mbuf failures might reasonably be expected? Is
>> allocating mbufs at interrupt time something that wasnt expected in the
>> original system design?
>
>The mbuf pool might be empty.

This one I figured out :-)

Dennis



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message