From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 30 18:19:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DAB616A4CE for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:19:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail4.speakeasy.net (mail4.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E15A43D3F for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:19:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 23072 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2004 18:19:25 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 30 Jun 2004 18:19:24 -0000 Received: from 131.106.56.214 (p58.n-nypop02.stsn.com [199.106.89.58]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5UHQwRm019103; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:27:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: Gerrit Nagelhout Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:28:08 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200406301328.08536.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: kris@FreeBSD.org cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org cc: Julian Elischer Subject: Re: STI, HLT in acpi_cpu_idle_c1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:19:49 -0000 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 <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org