Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:23:16 -0400 (EDT) From: ahd@kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PCI SIO devices hog interrupts, cause lock order problems Message-ID: <20040830192316.6B6CD12351@shub-internet.kew.com> In-Reply-To: <20040830.124141.44509158.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From imp@bsdimp.com Mon Aug 30 14:50:50 2004 > : Basically, any PCI SIO device hogs its interrupt if the PUC device is not > : also in the kernel, and this causes real problems for any environment like > : mine where pulling the modem is not trivial. Does the distributed GENERIC > : kernel have room for the PUC device? Are there side effects that PUC should > : be excluded from GENERIC? > > puc should be in GENERIC, imho. Who makes the call (or the commit)? The cost is ~ 55K on disk (which seems excessive) with current build, I assume that's bloated by the current kernel options. > : As a bonus, there appears to be a bug with kernel locking exposed by the > : problem. With the stock generic kernel, the XL device reports it couldn't > : map the interrupt, and then a lock order reversal is reported. (See the > : attached log for the gory details). > > This is a known problem. Well, it at least it didn't panic on me, which previous experiments (months ago) were prone to do. -ahd- p.s. Sorry about the original mail being ugly MS HTML. I needed the MIME, not the HTML.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040830192316.6B6CD12351>