Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 02:25:39 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: "Peter S. Housel" <housel@acm.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/isa apic_vector.s icu_vector.s Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103070204210.11775-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpae6zxch6.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6 Mar 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > > [...] The DDB key would still work if the keyboard interrupt has > > higher priority than the card interrupt. > > The keyboard interrupt is irq 1, which has higher priority than > anything except the clock (irq 0). Er, no. First, FreeBSD programs the ICU priorities to order 3-7,0-2 in the non-PC98 case. Thus irq 1 has one of the lowest priorities (only irq2 and thus irq8-15 are lower). Second, ICU prioritization has very little affect on FreeBSD interrupt prioritization. It affects fast interrupts but doesn't affect ithreads. The priorities in <sys/priority.h> are used for ithreads. I think the keyboard ithread has the relatively low priority PI_TTYLOW. The DDB key would work better if the ithread had priority PI_TTYHIGH. The busy-wait LED setting code in the ithread should be fixed before raising the priority. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0103070204210.11775-100000>