Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:37:09 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Enabling interrupt filters by default Message-ID: <200904151737.09769.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <A3D36F50-C823-41CB-9681-7C87A9BCDFDE@mac.com> References: <200904151324.06754.jhb@freebsd.org> <200904151613.50568.jhb@freebsd.org> <A3D36F50-C823-41CB-9681-7C87A9BCDFDE@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 15 April 2009 4:36:30 pm Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:13 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Wednesday 15 April 2009 2:04:14 pm Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > >> > >> On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:24 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > >> > >>> A while ago I changed the interrupt code in 8.x such that all the MD > >>> code was > >>> the same for both the INTR_FILTER and non-INTR_FILTER case. I would > >>> like to > >>> flip the switch to enable INTR_FILTER by default. Any objections? > >> > >> Last time it was found to be not working. Did we fix it? > > > > Err, when was that? > > August 2007. I rototilled all the MD interrupt code to make both the filter and !filter MD code identical and both sets use the same callout routines (post_filter, etc.) in April 2008. > > I know folks have used it on amd64 and i386 ok and I have > > tested it on both of those platforms. One of the arm kernel configs > > uses it > > by default. > > There was interrupt starvation on sparc64. There were also > issues with permanently masking stray interrupts. This is > problematic when interrupts are shared and there is at least > 1 filter on it. > > FYI, The MD interrupt code has changed quite a bit since then and I explicitly worked with marius@ and others to test the aforementioned changes (though various platforms may have only tested the !filter case at the time). -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200904151737.09769.jhb>