Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:15:38 +0100 (BST)
From:      alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
To:        rgb@phy.duke.edu (Robert G. Brown)
Cc:        rmail@ittc.ukans.edu, aic7xxx@FreeBSD.ORG, linux-smp@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-tulip@cesdis1.gsfc.nasa.gov
Subject:   Re: Duration of Blocked Interrupts
Message-ID:  <m0yUDym-000aNhC@the-village.bc.nu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980428113454.23254G-100000@ganesh.phy.duke.edu> from "Robert G. Brown" at Apr 28, 98 11:45:57 am

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> interrupt lock sets I noticed a very definite correlation between reads
> from relatively slow devices (e.g. -- a SCSI CD-ROM) and a network
> deadlockup.  A lot of folks have reported and are still reporting
> bizarre problems on systems with AIC cards (although mine is now totally
> stable thanks to the network driver fix).

Any situation doing that and locking up is a Linux code bug simple and
plain. The constraint for IP service in the SMP kernel is 10mS - and you
get warnings and no fatal stop if its exceeded at.

> Even though my system is "stable", it could be taking quite a
> performance hit, and it would be very interesting to compare the
> coincidence of this sort of interrupt blocking and the "Too much work
> at..." messages in fast ethernet network drivers that occur when
> interrupts are stacked too deep when the driver is finally entered.

100Mbit cards have ring buffers often of about 20 frames - just servicing
a messier ISA interrupt will do as much delaying as the longer AIC handler
paths.

Alan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe aic7xxx" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m0yUDym-000aNhC>