From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 9 12:16:42 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F6637B407 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wall.polstra.com (wall-gw.polstra.com [206.213.73.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D77543FD7 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:16:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from strings.polstra.com (strings.polstra.com [206.213.73.20]) by wall.polstra.com (8.12.3p2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h39JGZdt070624 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:16:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@strings.polstra.com) Received: (from jdp@localhost) by strings.polstra.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h39JGZ2x064053; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:16:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200304091916.h39JGZ2x064053@strings.polstra.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org From: John Polstra In-Reply-To: <20030409121408.A23344@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20030409114957.GN83126@cicely9.cicely.de> <20030409144042.B901@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <200304091900.h39J0igT063938@strings.polstra.com> <20030409121408.A23344@xorpc.icir.org> Organization: Polstra & Co., Seattle, WA cc: rizzo@icir.org Subject: Re: realtime problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 19:16:43 -0000 In article <20030409121408.A23344@xorpc.icir.org>, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 12:00:44PM -0700, John Polstra wrote: > ... > > Huh? I'm not aware of any hz-related botches in the mii code. > > Could you give me a specific example? I'd like to fix it if I can > > find it. > > it is not hz-related, the fact is that some PHY events are > handled by busy-waiting in the interrupt service routine > thus causing unpredictable latencies in the response to > interrupts. Ah, I get it now. Thanks for the clarification! John