From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 4 14:33:18 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA07055 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:33:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from clem.systemsix.com (clem.systemsix.com [198.99.86.131]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA06740; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:29:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clem.systemsix.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA06642; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 15:29:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199611042229.PAA06642@clem.systemsix.com> X-Authentication-Warning: clem.systemsix.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95 From: Steve Passe To: Bruce Evans cc: dg@root.com, hackers@freefall.freebsd.org, smp@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: ed0 timeouts In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 03 Nov 1996 20:47:03 +1100." <199611030947.UAA28658@godzilla.zeta.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 15:29:25 -0700 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Bruce, >My version of -current does lazy 8259-masking so that the 8259 doesn't >have to be masked unless the device interrupt repeats. I added these changes to the SMP kernel (#define APIC_LAZY in smptests.h, should be commited later today) and it seems to fix the problem! However system IO seemed to get hosed when I entered ddb to check the values of a few checkpoints I keep for debug. I went in/out of ddb several times (I think) but then going out the system "semi-hung": I could not get back to my virtual term, nor could I loggin anywhere else. I could ping the system so at least part of it lived... Have you ever seen similar problems with this code on your system? -- > It would probably >work to never mask it for edge triggered interrupts, but I'm worried >about noise, and level sensitive interrupts need to be handled somehow. I suspect I have only "greatly diminished" the occurrancees of INT loss, NOT completely eliminated them, since you mask on the 2nd hit. I would think a "properly" designed card would not be prone to noise. I could make 2 versions of the INTR macro (edge & level), and plug the appropriate one in as necessary in the XintXXX table. Opinions, anyone? -- Steve Passe | powered by smp@csn.net | FreeBSD -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzHe7tEAAAEEAM274wAEEdP+grIrV6UtBt54FB5ufifFRA5ujzflrvlF8aoE 04it5BsUPFi3jJLfvOQeydbegexspPXL6kUejYt2OeptHuroIVW5+y2M2naTwqtX WVGeBP6s2q/fPPAS+g+sNZCpVBTbuinKa/C4Q6HJ++M9AyzIq5EuvO0a8Rr9AAUR tBlTdGV2ZSBQYXNzZSA8c21wQGNzbi5uZXQ+ =ds99 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----