Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:27:46 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, BRETT_GLASS@infoworld.com, hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More or fewer IRQs? Message-ID: <199609190627.QAA30028@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>If what you say is true, the only place I can be sure to save time (this is >on a 486DX4/100) is at the ICU by setting those AUTO_EOI flags. But how >safe are these? I was getting missed IDE completion interrupts with a >kernel that had AUTO_EOI_1 on, but don't know if that was the only source >of the problem. (I've changed a LOT of options in more recent kernels.) For my hardware, they either fail completely (AUTO_EOI_2 fails for one system) or are completely safe. A missing EOI is probably unrecoverable - the software doesn't send one because it expects the hardware to, and the hardware only sends for the next interrupt which never occurs. If the IDE timeout fixed the missing IDE interrupts, then they probably weren't missed because of the EOI configuration. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609190627.QAA30028>