Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:28:08 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Gerrit Nagelhout <gnagelhout@sandvine.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: STI, HLT in acpi_cpu_idle_c1 Message-ID: <200406301328.08536.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337054EC4EE@mail.sandvine.com> References: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337054EC4EE@mail.sandvine.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 11:04 am, Gerrit Nagelhout wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > As per an errata that Brian pointed out, try using this patch > > perhaps. You > > can leave your isr_problem one in and hopefully the counter > > will stay at zero > > if it works. It adds some dummy reads of the local APIC to > > EOI's for IPIs. > > This patch doesn't seem to help any. My isr problem detection code > still found a problem 10 times in about 17 hours of stress testing. > I know that the HACK I added to make the system work is probably > incorrect, but what kind of side effects would you expect to see from > just calling EOI, and possibly not handling the interrupt? I think it does handle the interrupt, but that the EOI is somehow lost or ignored,or that somehow we don't send an EOI in some edge case. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200406301328.08536.jhb>