Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 19:44:55 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: othermark <atkin901@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: polling for sio? Message-ID: <20040408024455.GC20138@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <c51voo$jt$1@sea.gmane.org> References: <c519i5$5vt$1@sea.gmane.org> <20040407170422.GF567@funkthat.com> <c51voo$jt$1@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 03:36:02PM -0700, othermark wrote: > > , or fix > > sio so that COM_MULTIPORT (for shared interrupts) doesn't poll all > > sio devices, and instead it keeps track of which devices need to be > > polled for each interrupt (and possible use the AST/4 register to > > decide which ports to query).... > > > > uart already has most of this logic, but I haven't written an isa > > attachment for it to make use of the interrupt routing logic.. > > I have a multi-port PCI card under puc and sio that has 4 19200 > connections to it now, and when data is streaming across all of > them at once, I get several silo overflows. Would it be better > to run this under puc + uart? Not really. The problem is that puc(4) iterates over all ports in the same way whether you use uart(4) or sio(4). So, puc(4) is the problem more that sio(4) or uart(4). However, uart(4) has the beginnings of an interface that puc(4) could use to figure out which UART needs attention without actually calling the interrupt routine for each of them. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040408024455.GC20138>