From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 16 10:42:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79A0F16A4CE for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:42:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128CF43D1D for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:42:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from freebsd.org (junior-wifi.samsco.home [192.168.0.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5GAjGFC015195; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:45:17 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <40D023EE.7020302@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:41:50 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040304 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yongari@kt-is.co.kr References: <40CFC0A0.1000604@mWare.ca> <20040616034055.GE26532@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <40CFC2CF.8080509@mWare.ca> <20040616085518.GA8881@kt-is.co.kr> <40D011A8.1030404@freebsd.org> <20040616102504.GB8881@kt-is.co.kr> In-Reply-To: <20040616102504.GB8881@kt-is.co.kr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=3.8 tests=MANY_EXCLAMATIONS autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IT! WORKS! X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:42:49 -0000 Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:23:52AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > > Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > >On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 11:47:27PM -0400, Mykel wrote: > > > > Ken Smith wrote: > > >... > > > > > > > > Now how about the console? how can I make typing at least practical on > > > > here? I was hoping to use this as a desktop machine. > > > > > > > > > >Because I got big trouble while testing TCP/UDP cksum offload > > >fix for hme(4) on console, I touched ofw_console code. I stole > > >the code from OpenBSD. It seems that now the console works as > > >expected. No more 1 sec. pause needed to see correct typing on > > >keyboard. Here is patch. I'm not familiar with tty code, so > > >it may be just dirty hack or it may not work except my Ultra2. > > > > > >Regards, > > >Pyun YongHyeon > > > > > > > Another nice patch =-) The only question that I have is, is it > > possible to have more than OFBURSTLEN characters in the outq, and > > if so, what happens to the extra charaters? Do they just stay in > > the outq until the next poll cycle? I guess that it's hard to > I'm sorry I don't know. I just thought OF_write() is too slow, > it would be more efficient to write at once. So I stole the code > from OpenBSD. > > > get 12,800 keypresses in a second, though. The only other > > problem that I see is that I remember ofwcons taking up a lot of > > CPU when the polling cycle is increased. This was several years > > ago, though, so it might be different now. Have you compared > > CPU usage with your patch? > > > top says "0.5% sys" when I use OFW_POLL_HZ with 100. But when I > change the value to 20, top said "0.0% sys". With the value 20, > I had no lost characters on console. So in practice, the OFW_POLL_HZ > could be set to 20 or less than the value. > Thank you for pointing out. > Look at rev 1.4 of ofw_console.c. It looks like the polling interval was changed from 50 to 4 in response to poor performance and a certain lockup potential. Your change to batch the console writes will undoubtably help this, though. It would be very intereting to get some testing results from a blade100 and an Ultra5/10 on this. If people with this hardware can test and report back both whether it helps/hurts and if it had any impact on CPU load, I'll commit it. Scott